A Descriptive Analysis of Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Program Directors in the United States

Gender Inequity in Institutional Leadership Roles in US Academic Medical Centers: A Systematic Scoping Review

Importance

Academic medical centers have focused their efforts on promoting gender equity in recent years, but the positive outcomes associated with those efforts remain to be seen in recruiting and retaining diverse institutional leadership.

Objective

To evaluate the current state of gender inequity in institutional leadership roles, such as deans, department chairs, and residency and fellowship program directors, at US academic medical centers.

Evidence Review

A search for articles published from January 1, 2019, to August 5, 2022, on gender inequity in institutional leadership roles at academic medical centers was performed using the PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC databases. Studies were screened for inclusion by sets of 2 independent reviewers (with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer) and evaluated for risk of bias. The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards were followed for conducting the review, and the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was followed for reporting results.

Findings

A total of 8120 articles were retrieved, of which 6368 were screened by title and abstract, 6166 were excluded, and 202 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 94 studies reported on institutional leadership roles, including deans (5 studies [5.3%]), department chairs (39 studies [41.5%]), division chiefs (25 studies [26.6%]), and program directors (67 studies [71.3%]), with some overlap. A total of 678 participants were deans (564 men [80.5%] and 132 women [19.5%]), 8518 were department chairs (7160 men [84.1%] and 1358 women [15.9%]), 3734 division chiefs (2997 men [80.3%] and 737 women [19.7%]), and 9548 program directors (7455 men [78.1%] and 2093 women [21.9%]). Even in specialties with 50% or more female faculty, none had equal representation of women as department chairs and division chiefs. Gender inequities were particularly pronounced in surgical specialties.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic scoping review suggests that even though emphasis has been placed on addressing gender inequities in academic medicine, considerable disparities remain at the leadership level. While certain positions and specialties have been observed to have more female leaders, niches of academic medicine almost or completely exclude women from their leadership ranks. Importantly, even female-dominated specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology, have substantial inequity in leadership roles. It is past time for organizational and systems-level changes to ensure equitable gender representation in academic leadership.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Diversity in Plastic Surgery: Evaluating Effective Initiatives and Identifying Areas for Improvement

ABSTRACT

Women and racial and ethnic minorities have historically been underrepresented in medicine, making up a minority of all physicians and a smaller subset of plastic surgeons. Furthermore, these groups represent an even smaller fraction of plastic surgeons in research and leadership roles. Parallel to the general recognition of the importance of increasing diversity in the medical field, there has been a surge in the literature detailing current issues and highlighting potential areas for intervention within plastic surgery. Various initiatives have been piloted to address the underrepresentation of certain demographic groups in the field. These have largely targeted the medical student level, with a focus on increasing mentorship, targeted recruitment, exposure to the field, and scholarly opportunities. With the growing body of research conducted in this realm, this review seeks to synthesize our understanding of the modern landscape of gender, racial, and ethnic diversity within plastic surgery, with an emphasis on identifying successful initiatives that have positively impacted representation and inclusivity.

Mentorship in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature and Elucidation of Recurring Themes

Background

Mentorship is an integral part of developing competent, passionate, and successful plastic surgeons and is an important element of surgeons' wellness. Although mentorship programs have been described in the literature, this study aimed to elucidate the specific qualities of an effective mentor in plastic surgery.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses methodology was utilized to conduct a systematic review of the literature. A search of 3 electronic databases (PubMed including MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was performed for relevant studies up to June 15, 2024, using an advanced search for article titles and abstracts pertaining to plastic surgery and mentorship. Eligibility criteria included primary sources that explicitly commented on the qualities of an effective mentor in plastic surgery. A risk of bias assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists.

Results

A total of 284 records were identified. After screening, the final sample contained 8 records. Conserved themes across studies included "time investment and accessibility" and "shared identities." Effective mentors foster leadership, guide and teach mentees, and maintain accessibility. Underrepresented groups are more likely to publish with race-concordant mentors, and female mentees prioritize mentor-mentee concordance more than male mentees.

Conclusions

Effective mentors are accessible to their mentees and invest time in developing their personal and professional goals. Identity concordances, such as shared values or shared life experiences, may be important in sustaining strong mentor-mentee relationships. The mentorship literature in plastic surgery would benefit from additional primary studies to better optimize mentorship programs.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The number of publications on the subject of diversity, equity, and inclusion has surged in the last 5 years. However, a systematic review of this topic has not been published.

METHOD

Six top plastic surgery journals were queried from 2018 to 2023 using the search term "diversity." Methods, conclusions, and recommendations were tabulated.

RESULTS

A total of 138 publications were identified; 68 studies presented data suitable for analysis. All studies were retrospective. Currently, over 40% of plastic surgery residency applicants are women. The proportion of women in integrated plastic surgery residents is now 43%. In 2021 and 2022, the percentage of female first-year residents exceeded men. The percentage of female presenters at meetings (34%) is double the number in the workforce (17%). Twenty-five percent of academic faculty positions and 22% of program director positions are now held by women. Underrepresented minorities account for fewer than 10% of applicants to integrated plastic surgery residencies.

DISCUSSION

The proportion of Black and Hispanic applicants to integrated plastic surgery residencies (6% and 8%, respectively) mirrors the proportion of Black and Hispanic medical students (7% and 6%, respectively). Numerous recommendations have been made to increase the proportion of underrepresented minorities in plastic surgery programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The representation of women in plastic surgery has increased dramatically. A lack of Hispanics and Blacks reflects a small pool of applicants, as opposed to a "leaky pipeline."

The Evolving Plastic Surgery Applicant: How Far Have We Come in 30 Years?

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgery training has undergone tremendous change and transitioned through many models over the years, including independent, combined, and integrated. This study evaluates how these changes and others have affected plastic surgery applicants' demographics and academic qualifications over the last 30 years.

METHODS

Data on applicant demographics and academic qualifications were extracted from multiple sources including the National Resident Matching Program, the American Association of Medical Colleges, and cross-sectional surveys of plastic surgery applicants for the years 1992, 2005, 2011, and 2022. Data were compared using pairwise χ2 goodness of fit tests.

RESULTS

The sex distribution of plastic surgery applicants changed significantly over the last 30 years: whereas men predominated in 1992 (86% male vs 14% female), by 2011, the distribution was nearly equal (54% male vs 46% female in both 2011 and 2022, P < 0.001).The racial makeup of applicants also changed over time (P < 0.05). White applicants decreased from 73% in 1992 to 55% in 2011, and 53% in 2022. While there was an increase in Asian (7% to > 17% to > 20%) and other (13% to > 14% to > 21%) applicants over time, whereas the proportion of Black applicants remained stagnant (5% to > 6% to > 8%).Applicants with prior general surgery experience declined precipitously over the years: 96% in 1992, 64% in 2005, 37% in 2011, and 26% in 2022 (P < 0.001). When compared with 1992, Alpha Omega Alpha status increased significantly in 2011 (36% vs 12%, P < 0.05) but did not change considerably in 2005 (22%) and 2022 (23%). Research experience increased dramatically over the years, with the proportion of applicants with at least one publication going from 43% in 1992, to 75% in 2005, to 89% in 2011, and to 99% in 2022 (P < 0.001). Applicant interest in academic plastic surgery did not change considerably over the years at roughly ranging from 30% to 50% of applicants (P = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a shift in the demographics and academic qualifications of plastic surgery applicants over the last 3 decades. Understanding this evolution is critical for reviewing and evaluating the makeup of our specialty, and enacting changes to increase representation where necessary.

Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as Plastic Surgery Residents: Demographics, Credentials, and Pathways to Residency

OBJECTIVE

Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) are sparsely represented within plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) and recent changes including the elimination of step 1 scoring have further disadvantaged DO applicants. The demographics, degrees, and scholarly output of DO PRS trainees were compared to that of Doctors of Medicine (MDs) to identify areas of focus which could be used to increase competitiveness of DO applications.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was created, including ACGME-accredited PRS program trainees during the 2020 to 2021 academic year. DO and MD trainee demographics and scholarly accomplishments were compared using t-test and chi-squared analysis.

SETTING

Web-based publicly available information was collected for subjects.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1092 PRS MD and DO trainees were identified. DOs made up only 2.7% (n = 30) and MDs made up 97.3% (n = 1062).

RESULTS

More DOs trained in independent programs (63.3%) than integrated (36.7%) compared to MDs (88.2% v. 11.8%, p < 0.001) and more DOs trained at lower ranked PRS programs (60.0% of DOs and 18.1% of MDs trained at Q4 programs, p < 0.001). DOs had fewer publications (median, IQR: 1, [0-2]) compared to MDs (3, [1-8]), fewer citations (0, [0-6]) vs. (10, [1-56]) and lower H-index (1, [0-1]) vs. (1, [1-3]).

CONCLUSION

DO candidates should consider research years in the field of PRS and optimize clinical experience opportunities to increase the competitiveness of their PRS applications. Special attention should be paid to providing networking and research opportunities to DOs who lack home institutions.

Women in Plastic Surgery Innovation: A 10-Year Review of Gender Representation in Mammary Device Patents

BACKGROUND

This study aims to pioneer in evaluating women's representation in plastic surgery innovations, focusing on mammary prosthesis devices' inventorship. Despite growing gender parity in the field, women's involvement in innovation remains underexplored. This is especially crucial, as the predominant recipients of these innovative technologies are women, urging a necessity for broader female engagement in pioneering surgical advancements.

METHOD

Patents under the "A61F2/12: Mammary prostheses and implants" classification between the dates January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, were identified using Google Patents Advanced. Inclusion criteria included patents (not designs) in English and applications (not grants), with no litigation limitations. Data collected included ID, title, assignee (categorized as industry, academic, private, individual), inventors, and dates (priority, filing, and publication). Sex of inventors was identified with the literature validated gender API, with manual resolution of unresolved genders or with ga_accuracy scores of less than 75%. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed Student t tests, χ2 analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient (significance set at P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Of the more than 130,000 plastic surgery patents in English identified between the 10-year period, 1355 were classified as A61F2/12. A total of 374 unique patents were included for analysis (841 duplicates were removed, and 140 patents were excluded because of non-English character author names). There was a significant increase in patents over the decade (from 15 in 2011 to 88 in 2020, R2 = 0.74, P < 0.05), with a decrease in number of inventors per patent (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). Of the 1102 total inventors, 138 were female (11.2%), with a 4-fold increase in representation over the decade (R2 = 0.58, P < 0.05), including increase in patents filed with a woman first inventor (0%-14.8%). Women were equally likely to be first 3 inventors versus middle to last inventors (12.8% vs 11.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Over a decade, mammary device innovations rose significantly. Although women inventors' representation improved, it remains disproportionate compared with women in residency/practice. Hence, interventions should aim to align inventor representation with training ratios, through institutional optimization, reducing gender segmentation, and enhancing funding opportunities.

A Historical Review of Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in Plastic Surgery at the University of Michigan

In this article, we examine the 60-year history of diversity efforts within the Section of Plastic Surgery at the University of Michigan (UofM) in the context of national trends. We describe the experiences of pioneering Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) and female graduates of the program. James Norris, MD, and Christine Sullivan, MD, were the first URiM and female graduates from UofM in 1974 and 1989, respectively. Currently, women constitute over one-half the plastic surgery trainees at UofM, but URiM trainee representation remains limited. Dr. Adeyiza Momoh and Dr. Amy Alderman were the first URiM and female faculty members hired in 2011 and 2004, respectively. At present, there are four URiM and seven female faculty members in the Section. With a shared vision, supportive leadership, and motivation to change, faculty diversity has increased substantially. Additional strategies, including ongoing pipeline programs in medicine and science for URiM and women, are needed to further increase workforce diversity in plastic surgery.

Early Women Pioneers and the Evolution of Women in Plastic Surgery

The history of women in surgery has been documented since ancient times. Despite this, women physicians have historically encountered unique obstacles in achieving the same respect and privileges as their male counterparts. Early female physicians overcame many challenges to complete their training following graduation from medical school. The first woman in the field of plastic surgery in the United States was Dr. Alma Dea Morani, who became a member of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ASPRS, now ASPS) in 1948. She applied for plastic surgery training six different times over 6 years, until she was accepted at a position where she had shadowing-only privileges. Yet, her steadfast determination and perseverance led her to build a successful career, becoming a role model and advocate for women in plastic surgery. The Women Plastic Surgeons Forum within ASPRS was officially established in 1992; however, informal events began as early as 1979. This group fostered mentorship among emerging female leaders, allowing women to take on leadership roles within national plastic surgery organizations. These women, in turn, have become role models for subsequent generations of women in this field. Plastic surgery has historically seen a higher percentage of female residents relative to other surgical specialties. Studies have shown that female role models are the most influential factor for female medical students interested in plastic surgery, a powerful fact considering women now comprise over 50% of graduating medical students. Female mentorship is essential in fostering the future generation of female plastic surgeons.

Diversity in the Plastic Surgery Match: The Effect of Program Chair, Program Director, and Faculties' Race and Sex on Matched Applicants

INTRODUCTION

Prior studies have identified the lack of diversity within the field of plastic surgery (PS) and associated residency matches. In this study, the authors aimed to examine the effect of PS program chairs (PCs), program directors (PD), and faculty members' race and sex on PS applicants and matriculants within the same program.

METHODS

Deidentified applicant data from 2017 to 2021 submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's integrated PS program were analyzed. Applicants' self-reported sex and race were collected. Integrated PS program websites were assessed to determine whether applicants matched the program. Race and sex of PCs, PDs, and faculty members were collected from each program's website.

RESULTS

Overall, 79 integrated PS programs' websites and 1470 applicants were reviewed. The majority of PCs, PDs, and faculty members were male (87.3%, 81.0%, and 69.6%, respectively) and white (74.7%, 70.9%, and 68.8%, respectively). Most applicants were male (54.0%) and white (60.8%). For a given program, white PCs and PDs have 5 and 6 times the odds of matching an applicant of the same race ( P <0.001 for both). Having male PCs and PDs did not significantly increase the odds of matching an applicant of the same sex ( P =0.198 and 0.905, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although the field of PS has made great strides to close the sex gap within the residency match process, this study highlights ongoing racial disparities among nonwhite applicants.

Gender Diversity in Urology Residency Program Leadership Is Associated With Gender Diversity in Residency Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of program director (PD) gender on the proportion of female residents in urology residency programs.

METHODS

Demographics for program faculty and current residents matched in the 2017-2022 cycles at United States' accredited urology residency programs were collected from institutional websites. Data verification was completed using the American Urological Association's (AUA) list of accredited programs and the programs' official social media channels. Proportion of female residents across cohorts was compared using two-tailed Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three accredited programs were studied, and 6 were excluded for lack of data. Thirty (22%) of the 137 programs studied have female PDs. Of 1799 residents, 571 (32%) are women. There has been an upward trend in the proportion of females matched from 26% in 2018 to 30% in 2019, 33% in 2020, 32% in 2021, to 38% in 2022. When compared to programs with male PDs, those with female PDs had a significantly higher proportion of female residents (36.2% vs 28.8%, p = .02).

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-quarter of urology residency PDs are female, and approximately one-third of current urology residents are women, a proportion that has been increasing. Programs with female PDs are more likely to match female residents, whether those programs with female leadership rank female applicants more favorably or female applicants rank those programs higher. Given the ongoing gender disparities in urology, these findings indicate notable benefit in supporting female urologists in academic leadership positions.