The gender gap in academic dermatology and dermatology leadership: Supporting successful women dermatologists

The evolution of leadership: analyzing the presidents of American Dermatology Societies overtime

Within organized dermatology, it is imperative that leaders embody a diverse group of individuals, reflective of the dermatologists they represent and the greater U.S. population. Despite women constituting more than half of the dermatologic workforce, they represent a leadership minority in dermatology society higher level positions. This gap is evident by fewer women holding presidency positions within prominent dermatological societies; however, a comprehensive comparison across multiple societies has yet to be made. Our study analyzes and compares demographic as well as academic metrics of presidents from 16 prominent dermatology societies spanning 22 years, 2000-2021. Data were collected using organization websites, which demonstrated 247 unique presidents over 22 years. Of these presidents, 175 (70.9%) were male and 72 (29.1%) were female. Surgically focused societies had 63 (87.5%) male presidents and nine (12.5%) female presidents, while clinically focused societies had 112 (64.0%) male presidents and 63 (36.0%) female presidents (P < 0.0002). The publication h-index, academic rank, chairmanship, and number of advanced degrees, and total number of years in practice prior to election did not significantly differ between male and female leaders. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of female presidents across all societies between 2000 and 2021 by Cochran Armitage Trend Test. However, between 2016 and 2021, 35% of presidents were female and a general trend toward more gender balance may be noticed. This equality goal should continue to be emphasized in organized medicine.

Gender differences in dermatologist practice locations in the United States: A cross-sectional analysis of current gender gaps

Background

The percentage of female dermatologists has increased from 6.9% in 1970 to 48.9% in 2017. Despite the changing gender composition of the dermatologist workforce, it is unknown whether there are gender-based differences in dermatology practice locations.

Objective

This study aimed to characterize gender-based differences in dermatology practice locations across the United States.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of all dermatologists in the 2020 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Compare Database was performed. The number of self-identified female dermatologists and total dermatologists in each county and state was tabulated, and Spearman's correlation coefficients between county-level demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and female practices were calculated.

Results

Among 11,911 dermatologists, 5945 (49.9%) self-identified as female and 5966 (50.1%) as male. Of the 1052 counties with a dermatologist, 291 (27.7%) had no female dermatologist and 149 (14.2%) had no male dermatologist. The percentage of female dermatologists in each state ranged from 18.4% to 62.2%. Female dermatologists practiced more in areas with a higher percentage of democratic voters (r = +0.22) and higher median household income (r = +0.18), and less in rural counties (r = -0.18) or counties with higher uninsured rates (r = -0.11).

Conclusion

Female dermatologists remain significantly underrepresented in some regions in the United States, particularly in the Mountain states and rural counties. As women continue entering the dermatologist workforce, these results can inform workforce planning strategies to improve the distribution and accessibility of dermatologists across the United States.

The impact of gender in mentor-mentee success: Results from the Women's Dermatologic Society Mentorship Survey

Background

Mentorship can have a profound impact on the success and happiness of a mentee while also providing a sense of fulfillment and enrichment for the mentor. Both officially designated and spontaneously chosen mentors can be useful for protégés as they navigate through their training and professional work environment while striving to obtain the optimal work–life balance. Different genders can have variable experiences, in both their personal lives managing family obligations and their professional lives as dermatologists, which may affect the advice and guidance offered.

Objective

We studied the impact of gender on the mentor–mentee relationship for both official and spontaneous mentorships through a voluntary survey with a focus on reported outcomes from the perspective of the mentee.

Methods

Participants were selected through e-mail invitation via the Women's Dermatologic Society and program directors of the Association of Professors of Dermatology membership lists and given a link to the anonymous survey tool. The survey included 13 questions looking at official and spontaneous mentorships, the role of gender, and success in the dermatology field.

Results

Of the 288 respondents, 202 (69.9%) were women, 86 (29.8%) were men, and one identified as other. Of the survey participants, 81% had official mentors and 91% had spontaneous mentors, with the overlap indicating that there may have been a history of multiple mentors per individual. Mentoring had an overall significant positive impact, and 98.5% of those in the spontaneous-mentor group rated the mentor as helpful compared with 87.6% in the official-mentor cohort. For official mentorships, 60.1% involved gender-similar mentors, and of those who had officially designated mentors of any type, 55% indicated a preference for mentors of the same gender. When specifically looking at respondents who participated in same-gender official mentorships, 65.5% preferred this type; of those who had a gender-dissimilar equivalent, only 36.7% indicated a preference for gender similarity in a mentor. Comparably, 59% of protégés with spontaneous mentors had a gender-similar one, and of those who had spontaneous mentors of any type, 59.2% preferred gender similarity. When considering only those in gender-similar spontaneous mentorships, 74.5% favored a same-gender pairing compared with 32.9% of those in the gender-dissimilar group. For female–female official mentorships, 75% preferred a female mentor, similar to 80.5% of the spontaneous-mentor cohort.

Conclusion

Spontaneous mentors may provide a greater benefit than officially designated ones. For the majority of the categories, there was no statistical difference between female same-gender mentorships and gender-dissimilar relationships, which is in contrast with previously published literature. Overall, based on the feedback provided, the respondents believed that the quality of the relationship was the most important defining factor, but some noted that same-gender mentorships can provide additional benefit geared toward similar interests and experiences in life.