Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in radiology and there is a paucity of literature examining the recognition of their professional contributions to the discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of award winners across all North American radiology societies.

METHODS

The gender distribution of 1923 award recipients from 21 North American radiology societies between 1960 and 2021 was examined. Awards were divided into four categories: leadership, teaching, contribution to radiology, and promising new/young societal member. Primary outcome was the total proportion of awards received by gender. All data was compared to the gender distribution of working radiologists in North America.

RESULTS

A total of 1923 award recipients were identified between 1960 and 2021. Seventy-nine percent of award recipients were men (n = 1527) and 21 % were women (n = 396). As of 1970, the proportion of women award recipients increased 0.55 % ± 0.07 % each year. The proportion of women receiving radiological awards after 2018 is equal to or surpassing the percentage of women radiologists. Women received 36.4 % of leadership, 33.6 % of promising new member, 30.1 % of teaching, and 14.4 % of lifetime contribution awards.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, the proportion of women receiving awards was equal to or greater than the proportion of women radiologists. Women received more leadership awards and fewer lifetime contributor awards compared to men.

Defining the Roles and Responsibilities for the Vice Chair for Academic Affairs/Faculty Development in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To inform the development of a job description for Vice-Chairs for academic affairs (VCAA), members of the Alliance of Leaders in Academic Affairs in Radiology (ALAAR) were surveyed to better understand their current job responsibilities and how they would ideally allocate their professional time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a survey of 33 university-affiliated radiology departments and discussion among ALAAR members, the authors developed a detailed job description for the VCAA. The 21-question survey was composed and validated by experts in the field. It was distributed to all members of ALAAR via email with an electronic link and was open for 5 months. Results of the survey were tabulated, and a job description was crafted to represent the foundational roles of academic affairs leaders in radiology.

RESULTS

The response rate for institutions represented in ALAAR was 73% (33/45). All participants reported that they practiced in a university-affiliated institution. Faculty size varied from ≤49 (30.3%, 10/33), 50-99 faculty (24.2%, 8/33), and ≥100 faculty members (45.5%, 15/33). Only 24% of survey respondents had a detailed job description at the time of hire. More than 40% attested to significant oversight over faculty development programs (45%), mentorship programs (42%, and promotions (45%). Respondents ideally want increased oversight (defined as >10%) over exit interviews, faculty awards, promotions, onboarding, recruitment and hiring, and wellness programming.

CONCLUSION

The aspirational mission of the VCAA is to oversee components of sequential stages in the professional lifecycle of faculty members but a common job description for this role is lacking.

Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

RESULTS

A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities.

Institutional Strategies to Maintain and Grow Imaging Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Understanding imaging research experiences, challenges, and strategies for academic radiology departments during and after COVID-19 is critical to prepare for future disruptive events. We summarize key insights and programmatic initiatives at major academic hospitals across the world, based on literature review and meetings of the Radiological Society of North America Vice Chairs of Research (RSNA VCR) group. Through expert discussion and case studies, we provide suggested guidelines to maintain and grow radiology research in the postpandemic era.

Academic Onboarding: A Practical Guide for the Junior, Early Career Radiologist

A career in academia can provide a long-lasting, stimulating and fulfilling experience. It is an opportunity for professional growth, teaching, generating knowledge, and personal fulfillment. Many academic institutions experience challenges with low faculty retention and professional engagement. Increased awareness of early career challenges and development of onboarding programs can facilitate the transition into academia and help increase short- and long-term job satisfaction. In this article, we review challenges that radiologists are likely to encounter in academic careers, and how they can maximize opportunities for professional development. We provide practical tips based on literature review as well as personal experience with the hope that they may have a positive impact on attrition rate.

A Metrics-Based Research Salary Award System and Its 9-Year Impact on Publication Productivity

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Although metrics-based systems may incentivize academic output, no prior studies have evaluated the impact on publication metrics in academic radiology. This study presents a metrics-based system of awarding research protected time, and retrospectively evaluates its 9-year impact on publication productivity and impact factor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a metrics-based algorithm to award department funded Research Protected Time (RPT), metrics pre-RPT (2003-2009) and during the RPT period (2010-2018) from an academic radiology department were retrospectively analyzed to test the hypothesis that the RPT program resulted in higher publication productivity and journal impact factor at the departmental level and for faculty members receiving the award. Comparison was made between (1) pre-RPT and RPT periods and (2) during the RPT period, between RPT and non-RPT faculty members, for annual publication productivity normalized to faculty count (Student's t test) and median impact factor (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

RESULTS

For the evaluation period of 2003-2018, 724 unique publications were identified: 15% (107/724) pre-RPT period and 85% (617/724) RPT period. Normalized annual publication productivity was higher during the RPT period compared to the Pre-RPT period (1.2 vs. 0.3, p = 0.002), and within the RPT period, higher among faculty who received RPT vs. non-RPT faculty (3.5 vs. 0.4, p = 0.002). Median impact factor was higher during the RPT period compared to pre-RPT period (2.843 vs. 2.322, p = 0.044), and within the RPT period, higher in RPT vs. non-RPT faculty (3.016 vs. 2.346, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a metrics-based system of funded, research protected time, was associated with increased publication productivity and increased impact factor.

Leadership Titles in Radiology: Usage of Non-Inclusive Terminology among Academic Radiology Departments and Societies

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To characterize the use of gender-specific (chairman) and non-inclusive terminology (chief) to describe departmental and divisional/sectional leadership within academic radiology department and radiological society websites.

METHODS

From a total of 157 unique institutions identified, we gathered a list of 123 departments with functioning websites. We screened for use of "chairman" and "chief" on departmental home pages, welcome messages, faculty listings, and residency program pages, noting location on websites, and alternative terms, if present. We also assessed for use of "chairman" through a list of 14 radiological society websites. The overall usage of these terms was determined and the relationships between geographic region, faculty gender, and use of terminology were assessed.

RESULTS

"Chairman" is common among radiology department websites, with 42.1% (51/121) of websites using the term at least once. Usage of "chairman" was higher in departments whose chairs were men (OR 4.32, 95% CI: 1.36-13.69) and lower in those located in the Midwest (versus Northeast, OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.12-0.96). Use of "chief" is extremely common among departments listing divisional leadership, at 82.7% (67/81). Alternative terms used included "chair," "head," "chairperson," and "director." Among departments, the proportion of women in leadership roles is low, representing 19.7% (22/122) of chairs and 31.1% (272/874) of other leadership. Radiological societies were unlikely to use "chairman," with only one website using the term.

CONCLUSION

Use of "chairman" and "chief" is frequent among academic radiology departments. Further efforts should be made to assess the usage of non-inclusive terminology and its potential impact within academic radiology departments.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Learning from COVID-19: Sub-specialty radiologists should maintain general radiology skillset

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every facet of life and placed a significant strain on healthcare resources worldwide. One of the emerging themes of medicine's response to the outbreak is doing more with less. In certain parts of the world, the toll on healthcare workers has been immense, and practicing outside one's traditional scope and comfort zone has become the rule rather than the exception. For Radiology as a discipline, the stress of COVID-19 may be comparatively small when measured against the frontline physicians and nurses in the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit. Still, it is incumbent upon all disciplines to learn and grow from the challenges encountered during this crisis.

Lessons learned: A single academic department's unique approach to preventing physician burnout

Physician burnout is a recognized problem within medicine and its prevalence appears to be increasing. The symptoms include three major components; exhaustion, depersonalization and feeling a lack of accomplishment. The presence of burnout can have major professional and personal consequences. While there has been much commentary on the impact of burnout, little has been published addressing ways to prevent and resolve the issue. Our department has taken a novel and individualized approach to lower burnout. This includes allowing faculty to personalize their schedules as demonstrated by the perspectives of four breast imaging faculty. We as physicians are as diverse as the patient population we treat which needs to be recognized when addressing solutions to burnout. We propose that most practices and departments can find meaningful ways to allow physicians to increase their sense of autonomy through flexibility and control in scheduling. Having leadership open to unique and sometimes unconventional approaches enables a mutually beneficial culture of respect, productivity, and wellness.

Patterns of Recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding to Diagnostic Radiology Departments: Analysis Using the NIH RePORTER System

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to characterize recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for diagnostic radiology departments at US medical schools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study did not use private identifiable information and thus did not constitute human subjects research. The public NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results system was used to extract information regarding 887 NIH awards in 2015 to departments of "Radiation-Diagnostic/Oncology." Internet searches were conducted to identify each primary investigator (PI)'s university web page, which was used to identify the PI's departmental affiliation, gender, degree, and academic rank. A total of 649 awards to diagnostic radiology departments, based on these web searches, were included; awards to radiation oncology departments were excluded. Characteristics were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 61 unique institutions received awards. The top five funded institutions represented 33.6% of all funding. The most common institutes administering these awards were the National Cancer Institute (29.0%) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (21.6%). Women received 15.9% of awards and 13.3% of funding, with average funding per award of $353,512 compared to $434,572 for men. PhDs received 77.7% of all awards, with average funding per award of $457,413 compared to $505,516 for MDs. Full professors received 51.2% of awards (average funding per award of $532,668), compared to assistant professors who received 18.4% of awards ($260,177). Average funding was $499,859 for multiple-PI awards vs. $397,932 for single-PI awards. Common spending categories included "neurosciences," "cancer," "prevention," and "aging."

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding for diagnostic radiology departments has largely been awarded to senior-ranking male PhD investigators, commonly at large major academic medical centers. Initiatives are warranted to address such disparities and promote greater diversity in NIH funding among diagnostic radiology investigators.

Associations Between Academic Rank and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among United States Academic Radiologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate associations between traditional and advanced bibliometric indices with academic rank for radiologists in the United States.

METHODS

Faculty web pages were searched to classify 538 members of the Association of University Radiologists as assistant (n = 212), associate (n = 128), or full (n = 198) professors. Radiologists' publication and citation records were extracted from Scopus to compute the following indices: publication count, citation count, h-index, i-10 index, h_c-index, m-quotient, e-index, and g-index. Analysis of variance, multivariable logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were performed.

RESULTS

All indices were significantly different among the three groups (P ≤.001), progressively increasing with increasing rank (eg, mean publication count of 17, 41, and 128 among assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively; mean citation count of 205, 687, and 3622, respectively; mean h-index of 5, 11, and 27, respectively). At multivariable analysis, the h-index (reflecting publications and citations) was a strong significant independent positive predictor of associate (β=+0.32, P <.001) or full professor (β=+0.26, P <.001) status, whereas the m-quotient (adjusted h-index that is greater for more rapid publication) was a strong significant independent negative predictor of associate (β=-1.87, P = .009) or full professor (β =-4.97, P <.001) status. The models exhibited moderate goodness-of-fit (r² = 0.534-0.655; P <.001). The model for predicting at least associate professor achieved area under the curve 0.876 (sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 88.8%). The model for predicting full professor achieved area under the curve 0.925 (sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 86.1%).

CONCLUSION

When controlling for the h-index, more rapid publication, as indicated by the m-quotient, was negatively associated with radiologists' academic rank, indicating the additional influence of career duration in promotions decisions.

Research Challenges and Opportunities for Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Departments

Between 2004 and 2012, US funding for the biomedical sciences decreased to historic lows. Health-related research was crippled by receiving only 1/20th of overall federal scientific funding. Despite the current funding climate, there is increased pressure on academic radiology programs to establish productive research programs. Whereas larger programs have resources that can be utilized at their institutions, small to medium-sized programs often struggle with lack of infrastructure and support. To address these concerns, the Association of University Radiologists' Radiology Research Alliance developed a task force to explore any untapped research productivity potential in these smaller radiology departments. We conducted an online survey of faculty at smaller clinically funded programs and found that while they were interested in doing research and felt it was important to the success of the field, barriers such as lack of resources and time were proving difficult to overcome. One potential solution proposed by this task force is a collaborative structured research model in which multiple participants from multiple institutions come together in well-defined roles that allow for an equitable distribution of research tasks and pooling of resources and expertise. Under this model, smaller programs will have an opportunity to share their unique perspective on how to address research topics and make a measureable impact on the field of radiology as a whole. Through a health services focus, projects are more likely to succeed in the context of limited funding and infrastructure while simultaneously providing value to the field.

Balancing the three missions and the impact on academic radiology

The three missions of academic radiology compete with one another for time and funding. Revenue for the clinical mission often subsidizes education and research. Given the internal and external drivers/pressures on health care and, more particularly, on academic health centers, the current model is unsustainable. Trends seen in other industries are entering academic health care. The radiology department of the future will need to be more efficient with increasingly fewer resources while meeting its missions at higher levels of expectation.

Scientific writing and publishing: its importance to radiologists

Scientific writing and publication marks the endpoint of research that has been performed, completed, peer reviewed and accepted, and complements teaching and training, clinical service and patient care. Writing has numerous benefits, one of the most important ones being the inherent training undertaken to better appreciate and evaluate the published work of others. Effective scientific writing is an important component of a radiologist's practice, and should be cultivated at an early stage of the career.