Dataset Information

Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.

Objective

To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.

Data sources

Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.

Study selection

A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary study outcome was the h-index.

Results

The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).

Conclusions and relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

SUBMITTER: Ha GL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8243235 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo review systematically the evidence about what factors influence the decision to choose or not choose a career in academic medicine.DesignA systematic review of relevant literature from 1990 to May 2005.Data sourcesSearches of The Cochrane Library, Medline (using Ovid and PubMed) from 1990 to May 2005, and EMBASE from 1990 to May 2005 were completed to identify relevant studies that explored the influential factors. Additional articles were identified from searching the bibliographies of retrieved articles.Selection of studiesWe attempted to identify studies that included residents, fellows, or staff physicians. No restrictions were placed on the study methodologies identified and all articles presenting empirical evidence were retrieved. For cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, minimum inclusion criteria were the presence of defined groups, and the ability to extract relevant data. For surveys that involved case series, minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the population, and the availability of extractable data. Minimum inclusion criteria for qualitative studies were descriptions of the sampling strategy and methods.ResultsThe search identified 251 abstracts; 25 articles were included in this review. Completion of an MD with a graduate degree or fellowship program is associated with a career in academic medicine. Of the articles identified in this review, this finding is supported by the highest quality of evidence. Similarly, the completion of research and publication of this research in medical school and residency are associated with a career in academic medicine. The desire to teach, conduct research, and the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided in academia may also persuade people to choose this career path. The influence of a role model or a mentor was reported by physicians to impact their decision making. Trainees' interest in academic medicine wanes as they progress through their residency.ConclusionsIn order to revitalize academic medicine, we must engage trainees and retain their interest throughout their training. Research opportunities for medical students, and fellowships or graduate training can meet this challenge and influence career choice. Initiatives to stimulate and maintain interest in academic medicine should be evaluated in prospective studies across multiple sites.

Project description:ObjectiveMany studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020.Study selectionAll original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included.Data extraction and synthesisStudy screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.ResultsOur search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12).ConclusionsGender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197414.

Project description:Background and purposeWomen have worse outcomes than men after stroke. Differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and, in part, explain these disparities. We investigated whether there are sex differences in clinical presentation of acute stroke or transient ischemic attack.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Inclusion criteria were (1) cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, or randomized controlled trial design; (2) admission for (suspicion of) ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack; and (3) comparisons possible between sexes in ≥1 nonfocal or focal acute stroke symptom(s). A random-effects model was used for our analyses. We performed sensitivity and subanalyses to help explain heterogeneity and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias.ResultsWe included 60 studies (n=582 844; 50% women). In women, headache (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.39]; I2=75.2%; 30 studies) occurred more frequently than in men with any type of stroke, as well as changes in consciousness/mental status (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.19-1.61]; I2=95.0%; 17 studies) and coma/stupor (OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.25-1.55]; I2=27.0%; 13 studies). Aspecific or other neurological symptoms (nonrotatory dizziness and non-neurological symptoms) occurred less frequently in women (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]; I2=0.1%; 5 studies). Overall, the presence of focal symptoms was not associated with sex (pooled OR, 1.03) although dysarthria (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]; I2=48.6%; 11 studies) and vertigo (OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13-1.34]; I2=44.0%; 8 studies) occurred more frequently, whereas symptoms of paresis/hemiparesis (OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.97]; I2=72.6%; 7 studies) and focal visual disturbances (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70-0.99]; I2=62.8%; 16 studies) occurred less frequently in women compared with men with any type of stroke. Most studies contained possible sources of bias.ConclusionsThere may be substantive differences in nonfocal and focal stroke symptoms between men and women presenting with acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, but sufficiently high-quality studies are lacking. More studies are needed to address this because sex differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and undertreatment.

Project description:BackgroundMany academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction.ResultsOf 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we included 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies reporting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low.InterpretationStrategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed.