Dataset Information

Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Many 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.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020.

Study selection

All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Study 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.

Results

Our 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).

Conclusions

Gender 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 number

CRD42020197414.

SUBMITTER: Li B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565568 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies demonstrate that women physicians are less likely than men to be full professors. Comprehensive evidence examining whether sex differences in faculty rank exist in academic cardiology, adjusting for experience and research productivity, is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated for sex differences in faculty rank among a comprehensive, contemporary cohort of US cardiologists after adjustment for several factors that impact academic advancement, including measures of clinical experience and research productivity.MethodsWe identified all US cardiologists with medical school faculty appointments in 2014 by using the American Association of Medical Colleges faculty roster and linked this list to a comprehensive physician database from Doximity, a professional networking website for doctors. Data on physician age, sex, years since residency, cardiology subspecialty, publications, National Institutes of Health grants, and registered clinical trials were available for all academic cardiologists. We estimated sex differences in full professorship, adjusting for these factors and medical school-specific fixed effects in a multivariable regression model.ResultsAmong 3810 cardiologists with faculty appointments in 2014 (13.3% of all US cardiologists), 630 (16.5%) were women. Women faculty were younger than men (mean age, 48.3 years versus 53.5 years, P<0.001), had fewer total publications (mean number: 16.5 publications versus 25.2 publications; P<0.001), were similarly likely to have National Institutes of Health funding (proportion with at least 1 National Institutes of Health award, 10.8% versus 10.4%; P=0.77), and were less likely to have a registered clinical trial (percentage with at least 1 clinical trial, 8.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.10). Among 3180 men, 973 (30.6%) were full professors in comparison with 100 (15.9%) of 630 women. In adjusted analyses, women were less likely to be full professors than men (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P=0.02; adjusted proportions, 22.7% versus 26.7%; absolute difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -7.5% to -0.7%).ConclusionsAmong cardiology faculty at US medical schools, women were less likely than men to be full professors after accounting for several factors known to influence faculty rank.

Project description:ImportanceDespite 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.ObjectiveTo 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 sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA 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 synthesisData 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 measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe 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 relevanceIn 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.