Dataset Information

Gender discrepancy in research activities during radiology residency.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the presence of gender disparity in academic involvement during radiology residency and to identify and characterize any gender differences in perceived barriers for conducting research.

Methods

An international call for participation in an online survey was promoted via social media and through multiple international and national radiological societies. A 35-question survey invited radiology trainees worldwide to answer questions regarding exposure and barriers to academic radiology during their training. Gender differences in response proportions were analyzed using either Fisher's exact or chi-squared tests.

Results

Eight hundred fifty-eight participants (438 men, 420 women) from Europe (432), Asia (241), North and South America (144), Africa (37), and Oceania (4) completed the survey. Fewer women radiology residents were involved in research during residency (44.3%, 186/420 vs 59.4%, 260/438; p ? 0.0001) and had fewer published original articles (27.9%, 117/420 vs. 40.2%, 176/438; p = 0.001). Women were more likely to declare gender as a barrier to research (24.3%, 102/420 vs. 6.8%, 30/438; p < 0.0001) and lacked mentorship/support from faculty (65%, 273/420 vs. 55.7%, 244/438; p = 0.0055). Men were more likely to declare a lack of time (60.3%, 264/438 vs. 50.7%, 213/420; p = 0.0049) and lack of personal interest (21%, 92/438 vs. 13.6%, 57/420, p = 0.0041) in conducting research.

Conclusion

Fewer women were involved in academic activities during radiology residency, resulting in fewer original published studies compared to their men counterparts. This is indicative of an inherent gender imbalance. Lack of mentorship reported by women radiologists was a main barrier to research.

SUBMITTER: Vernuccio F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6925606 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gender discrepancy in research activities during radiology residency.

Vernuccio Federica F Arzanauskaite Monika M Turk Sevcan S Torres Estefania Terrazas ET Choa Joanna Marie D JMD Udare Ashlesha Satish AS Haroun Dina D Serra Maria Mercedes MM Shelmerdine Susan S Bold Bayarbaatar B Bae Jae Seok JS Romero Eduardo Estades EE Vilgrain Valérie V

Insights into imaging 20191221 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the presence of gender disparity in academic involvement during radiology residency and to identify and characterize any gender differences in perceived barriers for conducting research.<h4>Methods</h4>An international call for participation in an online survey was promoted via social media and through multiple international and national radiological societies. A 35-question survey invited radiology trainees worldwide to answer questions regarding exposure and ba ...[more]

PMID: 31865450

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale and objectivesVirtual residency interviews have become crucial in maintaining CDC-recommended precautionary measures throughout the ongoing COVID-era. However, scant literature exists regarding the direct impact the pandemic has had on the radiology program selection process, including preferred modalities of residency interviews and social media utilization. This survey aimed to understand how radiology programs adapted to changes in the 2020-2021 virtual application cycle.Materials and methodsA 32-question survey was distributed to 194 residency programs between July and August of 2021. Data were analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics and Paired Student's T-testing.ResultsA total of 31 programs completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 16%. When queried about the perceived success of virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 application cycle, 21 programs (68%) said the new interview format was very successful. Twenty-seven of the programs (87%) believed they were able to adequately gauge applicants through virtual interviews. However, when surveyed about personal preferences for interviews, the responses were more evenly distributed between virtual (11/31, 35%) and in-person (14/31, 45%). Pre-COVID, the top three criteria programs used to rank candidates were USMLE Step 1 score (20/31, 65%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (12/31, 39%). Within the virtual, COVID-19 era, these criteria remained statistically unchanged (p = 0.22): USMLE Step 1 score (21/31, 68%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (14/31, 45%). About half of programs who had not previously utilized social media (12 of 23, 52%) created accounts, mostly via Twitter or Instagram.ConclusionThe primary findings indicate that programs perceived success with virtually interviewing and ranking applicants, the criteria to rank applicants remain unchanged despite the virtual environment, and programs' social media utilization increased.

Project description:Women are disproportionately underrecognized as award winners within medical societies. The presence of this disparity has not been investigated in training programs. To determine the presence of a gender disparity in award winners in general surgery residency programs. In this retrospective survey study, 32 geographically diverse academic and independent general surgery residency programs were solicited for participation. The 24 participating programs (75.0%) submitted deidentified data regarding the gender distribution of residents and trainee award recipients for the period from July 1, 1996, to June 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 11, 2017, to December 21, 2018. Time and the proportion of female trainees. The primary outcome was the percentage of female award winners. A multilevel logistic regression model accounting for the percentage of female residents in each program compared the odds of a female resident winning an award relative to a male resident. This analysis was repeated for the first and second decades of the study. Award winners were further analyzed by type of award (clinical excellence, nonclinical excellence, teaching, or research) and selection group (medical students, residents, or faculty members). A total of 5030 of 13 760 resident person-years (36.6%) and 455 of 1447 award winners (31.4%) were female. Overall, female residents were significantly less likely to receive an award compared with male residents (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.54; P < .001). During the first decade of the study, female residents were 70.8% less likely to receive an award compared with male residents (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.45; P < .001); this improved to 49.9% less likely in the second decade (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.61; P < .001). Female residents were less likely to receive an award for teaching (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.42; P < .001), clinical excellence (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.61; P < .001), or nonclinical excellence (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P = .04). No statistical difference was observed for research award winners (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42-1.12; P = .17). The largest discrepancies were observed when award recipients were chosen by residents (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.39; P < .001) and students (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.42; P < .001) compared with faculty members (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .001). This study found that female residents were significantly underrepresented as award recipients. These findings suggest the presence of ongoing implicit bias in surgery departments and training programs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo present a framework to develop and implement a fast-track artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum into an existing radiology residency program, with the potential to prepare a new generation of AI conscious radiologists.MethodsThe AI-curriculum framework comprises five sequential steps: (1) forming a team of AI experts, (2) assessing the residents' knowledge level and needs, (3) defining learning objectives, (4) matching these objectives with effective teaching strategies, and finally (5) implementing and evaluating the pilot. Following these steps, a multidisciplinary team of AI engineers, radiologists, and radiology residents designed a 3-day program, including didactic lectures, hands-on laboratory sessions, and group discussions with experts to enhance AI understanding. Pre- and post-curriculum surveys were conducted to assess participants' expectations and progress and were analyzed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.ResultsThere was 100% response rate to the pre- and post-curriculum survey (17 and 12 respondents, respectively). Participants' confidence in their knowledge and understanding of AI in radiology significantly increased after completing the program (pre-curriculum means 3.25 ± 1.48 (SD), post-curriculum means 6.5 ± 0.90 (SD), p-value = 0.002). A total of 75% confirmed that the course addressed topics that were applicable to their work in radiology. Lectures on the fundamentals of AI and group discussions with experts were deemed most useful.ConclusionDesigning an AI curriculum for radiology residents and implementing it into a radiology residency program is feasible using the framework presented. The 3-day AI curriculum effectively increased participants' perception of knowledge and skills about AI in radiology and can serve as a starting point for further customization.Critical relevance statementThe framework provides guidance for developing and implementing an AI curriculum in radiology residency programs, educating residents on the application of AI in radiology and ultimately contributing to future high-quality, safe, and effective patient care.Key points• AI education is necessary to prepare a new generation of AI-conscious radiologists. • The AI curriculum increased participants' perception of AI knowledge and skills in radiology. • This five-step framework can assist integrating AI education into radiology residency programs.

Dataset Information

Gender discrepancy in research activities during radiology residency.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Gender discrepancy in research activities during radiology residency.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets