Women in academic psychiatry in the United Kingdom

The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals

PURPOSE

The number of women in medicine generally and in psychiatry specifically has increased considerably during the past 40 years, but the lack of advancement of women in academic medicine is still concerning. This study explores the changes in female authorship patterns in three high-impact general psychiatric journals.

METHOD

The authors categorized articles published in 1994 and 2007 by the Archives of General Psychiatry, The American Journal of Psychiatry, and The British Journal of Psychiatry according to the characteristics of the psychiatric research and the gender of each author for all articles.

RESULTS

Overall, the percentage of female authors increased from 24.6% in 1994 to 33.6% in 2007. The authors found the greatest increases in the percentages of female authors in the areas most relevant to an academic career-first authorship (from 17.1% in 1994 to 35.3% in 2007) and original research articles (from 18.4% in 1994 to 42.7% in 2007)-and in articles on the topic with the most growth over the same time frame-neuroimaging (from 14.7% in 1994 to 43.2% in 2007). The percentages of female authors of editorials rose from only 13.5% in 1994 to 26.2% in 2007. In 2007, women made up only 25% of the editorial boards of the journals under study (up from 16% in 1994).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable gains, women still are underrepresented in academic psychiatry, including in leadership positions. Ongoing efforts and interventions are required to promote further advances and gender equity.

One year outcomes of a mentoring scheme for female academics: a pilot study at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London

BACKGROUND

The professional development of under-represented faculty may be enhanced by mentorship, but we understand very little about the mechanisms by which mentoring brings about change. Our study posed the research question, what are the mechanisms by which mentoring may support professional development in under-represented groups? The study aims to: (i) to pilot a mentoring scheme for female academics; (ii) to compare various health-related and attitudinal measures in mentees at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year into the mentoring relationship and, (iii) to compare pre-mentoring expectations to outcomes at 6 months and 1 year follow-up for mentees and mentors.

METHODS

Female academic mentees were matched 1:1 or 2:1 with more senior academic mentors. Online surveys were conducted to compare health-related and attitudinal measures and expectations of mentoring at baseline with outcomes at 6 months and 1 year using paired t-tests and McNemar's test for matched cohort data.

RESULTS

N = 46 mentoring pairs, 44 (96%) mentees completed the pre-mentoring survey, 37 (80%) at 6 months and 30 (65%) at 1 year. Job-related well-being (anxiety-contentment), self-esteem and self-efficacy all improved significantly and work-family conflict diminished at 1 year. Highest expectations were career progression (39; 89%), increased confidence (38; 87%), development of networking skills (33; 75%), better time-management (29; 66%) and better work-life balance (28; 64%). For mentees, expectations at baseline were higher than perceived achievements at 6 months or 1 year follow-up. For mentors (N = 39), 36 (92%) completed the pre-mentoring survey, 32 (82%) at 6 months and 28 (72%) at 1 year. Mentors' highest expectations were of satisfaction in seeing people progress (26; 69%), seeing junior staff develop and grow (19; 53%), helping solve problems (18; 50%), helping women advance their careers (18; 50%) and helping remove career obstacles (13; 36%). Overall, gains at 6 months and 1 year exceeded pre-mentoring expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

This uncontrolled pilot study suggests that mentoring can improve aspects of job-related well-being, self-esteem and self-efficacy over 6 months, with further improvements seen after 1 year for female academics. Work-family conflict can also diminish. Despite these gains, mentees' prior expectations were shown to be unrealistically high, but mentors' expectations were exceeded.