Diversity Within the Most Competitive Internal Medicine Fellowships: Examining Trends from 2008 to 2018

How Did Black and Hispanic Orthopaedic Applicants and Residents Compare to General Surgery Between 2015 and 2022?

BACKGROUND

Despite the heavy demand for and knowledge of the benefits of diversity, there is a persistent lack of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in orthopaedic surgery. Since the implementation of diversity initiatives, data have shown that general surgery has been one of the top competitive surgical fields and has demonstrated growth in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, making general surgery a good point of reference and comparison when analyzing racial and ethnic growth in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What were the growth rates for Black and Hispanic orthopaedic residency applicants and residents between 2015 and 2022? (2) How did the growth rates of Black and Hispanic individuals in orthopaedic surgery compare with those of general surgery? (3) How did applicant recruitment and resident acceptance differ between Black and Hispanic people in orthopaedic surgery?

METHODS

Applicant data were obtained from historical specialty-specific data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service Statistics database between 2018 and 2022, and resident data were obtained from the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book between 2015 and 2021. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of residency applicants totaled 216,677, with 17,912 Black residency applicants and 20,413 Hispanic residency applicants. Between 2015 and 2021, the number of active residents totaled 977,877, with 48,600 Black residents and 62,605 Hispanic residents. Because the applicant and resident data do not overlap throughout all years of observation, a sensitivity analysis of overlapping years (between 2018 and 2021) was conducted to ensure observed trends were consistent and valid throughout the study. All datasets obtained were used to establish the different racial and ethnic proportions of Black and Hispanic residency applicants and residents in four nonsurgical primary care specialties and four surgical subspecialties. A reference slope was created using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education to represent the growth rate for total residency applicants and residents, independently, across all residency specialties reported in each database. This slope was used for comparison among the resident and applicant growth rates for all eight selected specialties. Datapoints were placed into a scatterplot with regression lines, using slope equations to depict rate of growth and R2 values to depict linear fit. Applicant growth corresponded to applicant recruitment and resident growth corresponded to resident acceptance. Chi-square tests were used to compare residents and residency applicants for the Black and Hispanic populations, separately. Two-way analysis of variance with a time-by-specialty interaction term (F-test) was conducted to determine differences between growth slopes.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery applicants between 2018 and 2022, and there was no difference in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery applicants (R2 = 0.43; p = 0.23 and R2 = 0.63; p = 0.11, respectively). However, there was a very slight increase in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery residents between 2015 and 2021, and a very slight increase in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery residents (R2 = 0.73; p = 0.02 and R2 = 0.79; p = 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black applicants between 2018 and 2022 (0.004 applicants/year versus -0.001 applicants/year; p = 0.22), and no differences were found in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black residents between 2015 and 2021 (0.003 residents/year versus 0.002 residents/year; p = 0.59). Likewise, Hispanic orthopaedic applicant growth rates did not differ between 2018 and 2022 from the rates of general surgery (0.004 applicants/year versus 0.005 applicants/year; p = 0.68), and there were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Hispanic residents (0.007 residents/year versus 0.01 residents/year; p = 0.35). Furthermore, growth rate comparisons between Black orthopaedic applicants and residents between 2018 and 2021 showed applicant growth was larger than resident growth, illustrating that the recruitment of Black applicants increased slightly more rapidly than resident acceptance. Growth rate comparisons between Hispanic applicants and residents showed a larger rate of resident growth, illustrating Hispanic resident acceptance increased slightly faster than applicant recruitment during that time.

CONCLUSION

We found low acceptance of Black residents compared with the higher recruitment of Black applicants, as well as overall low proportions of Black and Hispanic applicants and residents. Future studies might explore the factors contributing to the higher acceptances of Hispanic orthopaedic residents than Black orthopaedic residents.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We recommend that more emphasis should be placed on increasing Black and Hispanic representation at the department level to ensure cultural considerations remain at the forefront of applicant recruitment. Internal or external reviews of residency selection processes should be considered, and more immersive, longitudinal orthopaedic surgery clerkships and research mentorship experiences should be targeted toward Black and Hispanic students. Holistic reviews of applications and selection processes should be implemented to produce an increased racially and ethnically diverse applicant pool and a diverse residency work force, and implicit bias training should be implemented to address potential biases and diversity barriers that are present in residency programs and leadership.

Sex differences impact ergonomic endoscopic training for gastroenterology fellows

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic-related injuries (ERIs) for gastroenterologists are common and can impact longevity of an endoscopic career. This study examines sex differences in the prevalence of ERIs and ergonomic training during gastroenterology fellowship.

METHODS

A 56-item anonymous survey was sent to 709 general and advanced endoscopy gastroenterology fellows at 73 U.S. training programs between May and June 2022. Demographic information was collected along with questions related to endoscopic environment, ergonomic instruction, technique, equipment availability, and ergonomic knowledge. Responses of female and male gastroenterology fellows were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Of the 236 respondents (response rate, 33.9%), 113 (44.5%) were women and 123 (52.1%) were men. Female fellows reported on average smaller hand sizes and shorter heights. More female fellows reported endoscopic equipment was not ergonomically optimized for their use. Additionally, more female fellows voiced preference for same-gender teachers and access to dial extenders and well-fitting lead aprons. High rates of postendoscopy pain were reported by both sexes, with significantly more women experiencing neck and shoulder pain. Trainees of both sexes demonstrated poor ergonomic awareness with an average score of 68% on a 5-point knowledge-based assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical differences exist between male and female trainees, and current endoscopic equipment may not be optimized for smaller hand sizes. This study highlights the urgent need for formal ergonomic training for trainees and trainers with consideration of stature and hand size to enhance safety, comfort, and equity in the training and practice of endoscopy.

Gender differences in pulmonology and critical care authorship and editorial boards

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to characterize the gender distribution of first authors, senior authors, and editorial board members across several high-impact factor journals in PCCM.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we analysed gender disparities in critical care authorship and editorial boards, based on publications from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021 from the top 20 high impact journals based on the Journal of Citation Reports.

RESULTS

Among 20 journals (median impact factor of 6.66), 25% of editors-in-chief and 28.8% of editorial board members were female. From 2019 to 2021, a total of 23,994 articles were published. Female first authors and last authors made up 29.1% and 21.2% of the authorship, respectively (n = 6637 articles).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates significant gender disparities in critical care authorship and editorial boards, with males predominantly filling the roles of editors in chief, editorial members, and first and senior authors. Despite this significant difference in gender distribution, there was no statistically significant correlation between authorship and editor gender.

Gender-Specific Attitudes of Internal Medicine Residents Toward Gastroenterology

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Female representation among gastroenterology (GI) fellows has remained around 30%, yet women comprise over 50% of internal medicine (IM) residents. We aim to identify the gender-specific barriers of IM residents toward pursuing GI.

METHODS

We surveyed IM residents in the Northeast by emailing 168 IM programs a survey link to be distributed to their residents. A 4-point Likert barrier scale and bivariate analysis were performed with "yes" and "no," where "yes" was analyzed as "somewhat of a barrier" and above. Females received a third table assessing female-specific barriers. Significance was set at < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 215 survey responses, 56.3% (n = 121) were female. Response rate could not be determined due to resident identity protection and inconsistent responses of survey dissemination from programs. Females had significantly greater concerns about fertility, maternity leave, radiation exposure, work-life balance, stress, and burnout compared to males (p < 0.05). For females, 48.7% felt a lack of gender diversity in GI, 54.6% felt a lack of female GI mentors, and 43.7% felt there is a lack of respect as a female in GI. No gender differences existed in motivation to pursue GI, exposure to GI, and access to GI mentors, or GI-related research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals that female IM trainees had greater concerns surrounding fertility, radiation exposure, and maternity leave compared to male IM trainees. Lack of gender diversity and lack of female GI mentors were noted barriers for female IM trainees. Addressing these barriers may help increase female representation in GI.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism.