Diversity in American Society of Transplant Surgeons Governance: Equitable but Unequal

Choubey, Ankur; Bullock, Brenna; Hoste, Ben; Ortiz, Alejandro Chiodo; Khan, Samar A.; Mishra, Archana; Pearson, Terra; Koizumi, Naoru; Ortíz, Jorge

doi:10.6002/ect.2021.0111

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Removing single-sex panels can be an actionable step in the right direction. Women proportionately not having the same platform as men at meetings and national societies is present in other specialties outside of craniofacial surgery as well 20–22…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Sex Diversity Among Craniofacial Academic Faculty

Rivera

Hauc

Juan

et al. 2022

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sex diversity among plastic surgery and its subspecialties faculties lags behind many medical specialties. Despite the significant evidence in favor of diversity in leadership, female presence in high-ranking positions in medicine is lacking across multiple specialties. In this study, we aim to evaluate sex disparity among faculty across craniofacial fellowship programs by comparing the disparities among total number of faculty, program directors, years in practice, and academic rank. Our sample included 354 individuals including 193 craniofacial surgery journal editorial board members, 130 craniofacial surgery academic faculty members, and 31 craniofacial surgery association board members. A significant difference (P-value <0.0001) was seen among male and female craniofacial surgery faculty with 84.6% males. Faculty members were further subdivided by academic rank. A significant difference was found between the number of male and female faculty members at all academic positions (P-value =0.043). Of 41 full professors, 2.4% were female. There were 42 associate professors queried with 14.3% female. Similarly, 43 assistant professors were identified with 32.0% female. Years in practice after completing terminal training were analyzed across the academic faculty. There was a significant difference in the number of male and female faculty members across all experience levels (P-value =0.0037). Among the faculty with <10 years since completion of terminal training, 32.4 % were female. For faculty with 10 to 20 years after post-terminal training, 19.6% were female. For those with 20 to 30 years of experience, 0% were female. Finally, for the faculty with over 30 years since graduation, 5.9% were female. Board membership in 2 craniofacial surgery organizations was analyzed: the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association and the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons. Among the 17 board members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 8 (47.1%) were female. For the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, 5 (35.7%) were female. Data were collected for 193 editorial board members from 2 craniofacial surgery journals. There was a significant difference between the number of male and female members across both journals (χ2 value: 33.3570; P-value <0.0001). Among 56 editorial board members from Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 26 (46.4%) members were female. In comparison, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery has 24.8% female editorial board members. Sex diversity among faculty members is really important and should be brought into light to highlight and improve areas of particular importance and of tremendous potential impact. Given our results, surgical residencies and fellowship programs should begin to show concrete commitment and increase their efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty not only for the educational benefit but more importantly to achieve a higher level of care for all.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Women proportionately not having the same platform as men at meetings and national societies is present in other specialties outside of craniofacial surgery as well. [20][21][22]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%