Association of Academic Physiatrists Women's Task Force Follow-up Report

Analysis of Faculty Gender and Race in Scholarly Achievements in Academic Neurology

Background: Intersection of gender and race and/or ethnicity in academic medicine is understudied; we aim to understand these factors in relation to scholarly achievements for neurology faculty. Methods: Faculty from 19 US neurology departments completed a survey (2021-2022) to report rank, leadership positions, publications, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations. Regression analyses examined effects of gender, race, and their intersectionality on these achievements. Women, Black/Indigenous/People of Color (BIPOC), and BIPOC women were comparator groups. Results: Four hundred sixty-two faculty responded: 55% women, 43% men; 31% BIPOC, 63% White; 21% BIPOC women, 12% BIPOC men, 36% White women, 31% White men. Men and White faculty are more likely to be full professors than women and BIPOC faculty. The number of leadership positions, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations are significantly greater in White compared to BIPOC faculty. Relative to BIPOC women, the number of leadership positions is significantly higher among BIPOC men, White women, and White men. Publication numbers for BIPOC men are lower, number of funded projects and speaker invitations for White women are higher, and number of awards among White men and White women is higher compared to BIPOC women. Discussion: Our study highlights that inequities in academic rank, award number, funded projects, speakership invitations, and leadership roles disproportionately impacted BIPOC women. More studies are needed to evaluate gender and race and/or ethnicity intersectionality effects on faculty achievements, reasons for inequities, recognition, and potential solutions.

Analysis of physician recipients of recognition awards from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Race and Ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Medical society recognition awards are important resources for physicians in advancing their careers. There is a need to better understand the representation of physician recipients by race and ethnicity, especially in women with intersectional identities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the proportions of American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) award recipients by race and ethnicity and the intersection of gender.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and retrospective study.

SETTING AND METHODS

One hundred seven (n = 107) published online physician award recipients from 2011 to 2020 were categorized by race, ethnicity, and gender by two independent researchers. There was 100% interrater agreement on race and gender and 95% on ethnicity. Data were analyzed with descriptive analysis and multilinear regression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Awards given to physicians coded by race (White/Caucasian, Asian, and Black/African American), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino), and the intersection of gender with race and ethnicity were analyzed. The primary comparator was proportions by race, ethnicity, and gender of academic physicians in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) using Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) data. A secondary aim was recipients' proportions compared to AAMC benchmarks for all practicing physiatrists.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in representation of award recipients by race or ethnicity compared to the primary comparator of their percentages in academic PM&R. Notably, 96.3% of awards were given to physicians identified as being in or having been in academic medicine. Secondary analysis of award recipients to all practicing physiatrists revealed significant underrepresentation of recipients who were coded as (1) White/Caucasian women, Asian men and women, Black/African American men and women (p = .016), and (2) Hispanic/Latino men and women (p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

This is a novel study assessing race and ethnicity in physician recognition awards presented by a medical society. No significant disparities were found among recipients as compared to representation in academic PM&R. However, there were significant disparities when compared to all practicing physiatrists. These findings deserve further investigation and consideration as medical societies strive to equitably support all members.

Recognition Awards in Pathology Specialty Societies

OBJECTIVES

Recognition awards build physician reputation and facilitate career advancement. We hypothesize women physicians are underrepresented as award recipients by pathology medical societies compared with representation in the specialty.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available online information about physician recipients (January 2015 to December 2021) from three general pathology society websites. Recipient gender was determined by pronoun use, first name, and photograph. Representation was compared with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) specialty data from 2015 and 2019, which showed a minimum of 36.7% women pathologists in 2015 and up to 43.4% in 2019.

RESULTS

Twenty-six awards and 230 physician recipients were included in the analysis. A total of 159 (69.1%) men physicians and 71 (30.9%) women physicians received awards. Overall, women physicians were underrepresented in recognition awards compared with AAMC benchmarks. Prestigious awards (defined as those that recognize a person's body of work over time) showed a similar disparity with 22 (30.1%) of 73 recipients being women. Men physicians were more likely to receive multiple awards.

CONCLUSIONS

Women physicians are underrepresented overall for recognition awards by pathology medical societies. Disparities are greater for prestigious awards. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for these findings and how they affect women physicians' careers.

Author Diversity on Clinical Practice Guideline Committees

ABSTRACT

Reports have demonstrated that women overall and women physicians, in particular, are underrepresented as authors of clinical practice guidelines. This analysis used publicly available information to explore the diversity of rehabilitation-related clinical practice guideline authors by gender, race, and ethnicity. Primary analysis identified authors' gender, race, ethnicity, and visible minority status. Two sets were analyzed: (1) clinical practice guidelines by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) categorized as "Rehabilitation" or "Pain" (n = 7; VA clinical practice guidelines) and (2) a set (n = 10) published in the United States (US) from 2019 to 2021 that were selected because of low numbers of inclusion at less than 20% women authors. Key findings include that among physician authors, both the VA and US clinical practice guidelines underrepresented women (15 [24.2%] and 27 [16.7%], respectively) and those coded as a racial or ethnic minority were particularly underrepresented. Notably, women authors overall were equally represented (92 [50.0%]) in the VA clinical practice guidelines. The US clinical practice guidelines had women authors who were underrepresented (36 [19.0%]). Secondary analysis of the entire set of VA clinical practice guidelines (n = 21) found gaps in diversity-related content. Clinical practice guidelines have far-reaching health and economic impacts, and addressing disparities in the diversity of author teams and/or gaps in diversity-related content is of paramount importance.

Gender Inequities in Transfusion Medicine Society Recognition Awards

Award recognition by medical societies contributes to professional development, career networking, and academic rank promotion. Previous research has demonstrated that men are the predominant recipients of medical society awards across multiple medical specialties; as such, we sought to understand whether women are underrepresented as award recipients amongst blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) medical societies. We examined recipients of 10 total awards from the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) and the American Society for Apheresis. Additional evaluation of AABB's National Blood Foundation Hall of Fame inductees was conducted. Gender was determined via online review of pronouns, online photographs, and a web-based gender identification application. Award recipient gender was analyzed and coded independently by two authors, and any discrepancies were adjudicated by author consensus. Of the 330 AABB awards since 1954, significantly more have been conferred to men (81.5%, 269/330; P < .001). Of the 51 American Society for Apheresis awards presented since 1993, 64.7% (33/51; P = .23) have been conferred to men. Compared to the first 10 years of the AABB awards (1954-1964), there has been a significant increase in the proportion of women award recipients in the most recent decade (2010-2021) (18.5%, 5/27 vs 29.4%, 30/102; P < .001). However, additional temporal analysis of the modern era (2000-2021) revealed men have received significantly more AABB awards than women (77.4%, 144/186 vs 22.6%, 42/186; P < .001). Our findings highlight both historic and contemporary inequity for recognition of women within BBTM. Without improvement, gender parity among BBTM award recipients will take approximately 120 years (11% increase in women awardees in 60 years); thus, to ensure the BBTM field continues to progress, we must advocate for equity among all members, including but not limited to gender, race, and ethnicity. Strategies to enhance equity include transparency in the identities of award nominees, award recipients, and individuals on selection committees, the gender ratios of both award nominees and recipients, and implementation of methods for tracking individual demographics over time. These strategies would permit temporal analysis of the ratio of award nominee gender to award recipient gender, and assessment as to whether potential gender inequities improve over time.