An Analysis of Gender Bias in Plastic Surgery Resident Assessment

Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Solving disparities in assessments is crucial to a successful surgical training programme. The first step in levelling these inequalities is recognising in what contexts they occur, and what protected characteristics are potentially implicated.

METHODS

This scoping review was based on Arksey & O'Malley's guiding principles. OVID and Embase were used to identify articles, which were then screened by three reviewers.

RESULTS

From an initial 358 articles, 53 reported on the presence of differential attainment in postgraduate surgical assessments. The majority were quantitative studies (77.4%), using retrospective designs. 11.3% were qualitative. Differential attainment affects a varied range of protected characteristics. The characteristics most likely to be investigated were gender (85%), ethnicity (37%) and socioeconomic background (7.5%). Evidence of inequalities are present in many types of assessment, including: academic achievements, assessments of progression in training, workplace-based assessments, logs of surgical experience and tests of technical skills.

CONCLUSION

Attainment gaps have been demonstrated in many types of assessment, including supposedly "objective" written assessments and at revalidation. Further research is necessary to delineate the most effective methods to eliminate bias in higher surgical training. Surgical curriculum providers should be informed by the available literature on inequalities in surgical training, as well as other neighbouring specialties such as medicine or general practice, when designing assessments and considering how to mitigate for potential causes of differential attainment.

Gender differences in autonomy and performance assessments in a national cohort of vascular surgery trainees

OBJECTIVE

Gender disparities in surgical training and assessment are described in the general surgery literature. Assessment disparities have not been explored in vascular surgery. We sought to investigate gender disparities in operative assessment in a national cohort of vascular surgery integrated residents (VIRs) and fellows (VSFs).

METHODS

Operative performance and autonomy ratings from the Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL) application database were collected for all vascular surgery participating institutions from 2018 to 2023. Logistic generalized linear mixed models were conducted to examine the association of faculty and trainee gender on faculty and self-assessment of autonomy and performance. Data were adjusted for post-graduate year and case complexity. Random effects were included to account for clustering effects due to participant, program, and procedure.

RESULTS

One hundred three trainees (n = 63 VIRs; n = 40 VSFs; 63.1% men) and 99 faculty (73.7% men) from 17 institutions (n = 12 VIR and n = 13 VSF programs) contributed 4951 total assessments (44.4% by faculty, 55.6% by trainees) across 235 unique procedures. Faculty and trainee gender were not associated with faculty ratings of performance (faculty gender: odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-2.29; trainee gender: OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.43) or autonomy (faculty gender: OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41-2.39; trainee gender: OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.62-2.45) of trainees. All trainees self-assessed at lower performance and autonomy ratings as compared with faculty assessments. However, women trainees rated themselves significantly lower than men for both autonomy (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and performance (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30-0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Although gender was not associated with differences in faculty assessment of performance or autonomy among vascular surgery trainees, women trainees perceive themselves as performing with lower competency and less autonomy than their male colleagues. These findings suggest utility for exploring gender differences in real-time feedback delivered to and received by trainees and targeted interventions to align trainee self-perception with actual operative performance and autonomy to optimize surgical skill acquisition.

Evaluation Tools for Assessing Autonomy of Surgical Residents in the Operating Room and Factors Influencing Access to Autonomy: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical residents in France lack a clear pedagogical framework for achieving autonomy in the operating room. The progressive acquisition of surgical autonomy is a determining factor in the confidence of operators for their future independent practice. Currently, there is no autonomy scale commonly used in Europe. The objective of this study is to identify existing tools for quantifying the autonomy of residents and the factors that influence it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the recommendations of the Systematic Review Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Publications were extracted from the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and PSYCINFO databases. All publications without date restrictions up to July 2022 were identified.

RESULTS

Among the 231 identified publications, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen publications used a graded autonomy assessment tool by the student and/or the teacher, while 4 used evaluations by an observing third party. We found 8 different autonomy scales, with the Zwisch Scale representing 57.1% of the cases. Factors influencing autonomy were diverse, including the work context, experience, and gender of the resident and their teacher.

DISCUSSION

We found heterogeneity in the tools used to "measure" the autonomy of a resident in the operating room. The SIMPL tool or the Zwisch Scale appear to be the most frequently used tools. The relationship between autonomy, performance, confidence, and knowledge may require multidimensional tools that encompass various areas of competence, but this could make their daily application more challenging. The factors influencing autonomy are numerous; and understanding them would improve teaching in the operating room. There is a significant lack of data on surgical autonomy in France, as well as a lack of evaluation in the field of gynecology-obstetrics worldwide.

TimesUpPRS: A Social Media Movement for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Plastic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Minority representation and promotion in medicine is lacking. Social media can facilitate change by raising awareness of biases, empowering others, and cultivating connections. The TimesUpPRS Instagram account was created in March 2020 to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in plastic surgery by celebrating surgeons of diverse identities and emphasizing the need to create safe, fair, and equitable workplaces. We aim to characterize its content, audience demographics, engagement, and impact.

METHODS

All TimesUpPRS posts published until March 2022 were reviewed for content analysis. Audience demographics were assessed through Instagram Insights. Engagement was assessed through likes, comments, and posts tagging @TimesUpPRS.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-five posts have been published, with 45.9% original content. These posts discuss representation or treatment of women (39.7%), Black (24.2%), Asian and Pacific Islander (14.4%), LGBTQ+ (12.7%), LatinX (6.5%), people of color overall (4.8%), first generation-low income (1.7%), and Native American (1.1%) individuals. 45.1% aimed to raise social awareness, 19.4% spotlighted plastic surgery figures, 16.3% highlighted research, and 5.6% advertised opportunities for community involvement. The mean (SE) number of hashtags utilized was 10.9 (0.6), with #ilooklikeasurgeon used most. There were 2052 followers, but 10,025 accounts reached. Of reached accounts, 66.8% were women, 71.8% were from the U.S., and 55% were aged 25 to 34. The mean (SE) number of likes and comments per post was 62.2 (3.4) and 2.6 (0.2). 85.0% of comments were supportive. Three hundred sixty-six posts tagged @TimesUpPRS. TimesUpPRS has also garnered industry and private sponsorship, inspired DEI programming, and collaborated with multiple other organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2 years, TimesUpPRS has generated 350+ posts and reached 10,000+ accounts. Content highlighted figures of diverse identities and cultivated high, positive engagement. Now with 20 content creators, TimesUpPRS will continue increasing content, expanding its audience, and fostering impactful discussion that helps shift the existing culture to one of inclusivity and equity.

Gender and Language in Letters of Recommendation for Obstetrics and Gynecology Fellowship Applications

OBJECTIVE

To delineate the use of gender-biased language in letters of recommendation for Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowships and its impact on applicants.

DESIGN

Fellowship letters of recommendation from 4 Obstetrics and Gynecology specialties at a single institution in 2020 were included.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

frequency of agentic and communal language in letters of recommendation using Linguistics Inquiry Word Count software.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

letter of recommendation length and language utilization by author gender and applicant success measured by interviews and match success. Marginal models were fit to determine if language varied by applicant and writer gender and subspecialty. Modified Poisson regression models were used to determine associations between language and interview receipt.

SETTING

Single academic institution (Duke University); 2020 OB/GYN fellowship application cycle.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1216 letters of recommendation submitted by 326 unique applicants for OB/GYN subspecialty fellowships at our institution.

RESULTS

Rates of gender-biased language were low (Agentic:1.3%; communal: 0.8%). Agentic term use did not vary by applicant or author gender (p = 0.78 and 0.16) Male authors utilized 19% fewer communal terms than females (p < 0.001). Each 0.25% increase in agentic language was associated with an 18% reduction in the probability of interview invitation at our institution (p = 0.004). Percentage of agentic or communal language was not associated with successful matching into any subspecialty.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in agentic vs communal language based on applicant gender were found in this cohort, though female letter writers wrote longer letters with more communal terms. Increasing agentic terms negatively impacted interview invitation but did not affect successful matching.

Bias in Surgical Residency Evaluations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Given widespread disparities in the surgical workforce and the advent of competency-based training models that rely on objective evaluations of resident performance, this review aims to describe the landscape of bias in the evaluation methods of residents in surgical training programs in the United States.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted within PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC in May 2022, without a date restriction. Studies were screened and reviewed in duplicate by 3 reviewers. Data were described descriptively.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

English-language studies conducted in the United States that assessed bias in the evaluation of surgical residents were included.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1641 studies, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 26 (49.1%) were retrospective cohort studies, 25 (47.2%) were cross-sectional studies, and 2 (3.8%) were prospective cohort studies. The majority included general surgery residents (n = 30, 56.6%) and nonstandardized examination modalities (n = 38, 71.7%), such as video-based skills evaluations (n = 5, 13.2%). The most common performance metric evaluated was operative skill (n = 22, 41.5%). Overall, the majority of studies demonstrated bias (n = 38, 73.6%) and most investigated gender bias (n = 46, 86.8%). Most studies reported disadvantages for female trainees regarding standardized examinations (80.0%), self-evaluations (73.7%), and program-level evaluations (71.4%). Four studies (7.6%) assessed racial bias, of which all reported disadvantages for trainees underrepresented in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation methods for surgery residents may be prone to bias, particularly with regard to female trainees. Research is warranted regarding other implicit and explicit biases, such as racial bias, as well as for nongeneral surgery subspecialties.

Diversity Drives Innovation: The Impact of Female-Driven Publications

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. The expectation was that women would be cited less frequently than their male peers.

METHODS

Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from 8 representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the 50 most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. The median numbers of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (P > 0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

No implicit gender bias was identified in citation trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogeneous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.

The American Board of Surgery flexible endoscopy curriculum prepares individuals to pass the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery manual skills test

BACKGROUND

The American Board of Surgery (ABS) has required Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) certification for general surgery applicants since 2018. Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) completion is recommended prior to taking the FES exam. The objective of the study was to determine if FEC completion prepares individuals to pass the FES manual skills test.

METHODS

Participants included first-attempt FES examinees from June 2014 to February 2019. De-identified data were reviewed, Self-reported data included gender, PGY, glove size, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, simulation training time, and participation in an endoscopy rotation (ER). FES skills exam performance was reported by FES staff. Those completing all vs. none of the FEC were compared.

RESULTS

Of 2023 participants identified, 809 (40.0%) reported completion of all FEC components, 1053 (52.1%) completed of some, and 161 (8.0%) completed none. Men and candidates taking FES later in residency were more likely to complete all FEC requirements (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). FES pass rates were higher for those who completed all FEC components compared to those who completed none (88.4% vs 72.7%, p < 0.001). On logistic regression analysis, completion of all components (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.7, p < 0.001) and male gender (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p < 0.001) were predictors of passing, while glove size (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, p = 0.08), simulator time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.37) and PGY were not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.38). On multivariate analysis controlling for glove size and gender, completion of all FEC components was still associated with a higher likelihood of passing the FES skills exam (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Completion of FEC is strongly associated with passing the FES skills test. This study supports the ABS recommendation for completion of FEC prior to taking the FES skills test.