Gender Bias in Diagnostic Radiology Resident Selection, Does it Exist?

Hewett, Lara; Lewis, Madelene; Collins, Heather; Gordon, Leonie

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.10.018

Cited by 42 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals also should deepen their commitment to acquiring skills that can help them to manage bias. For example, a research project on radiologic technologists recommended that they try to take the perspective of patients [30]. Trying to imagine challenges members of underrepresented groups face can help decrease unconscious bias.…”

Section: Recommendations Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity Matters in Academic Radiology: Acknowledging and Addressing Unconscious Bias

Allen

Garg

2016

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To meet challenges related to changing demographics, and to optimize the promise of diversity, radiologists must bridge the gap between numbers of women and historically underrepresented minorities in radiology and radiation oncology as contrasted with other medical specialties. Research reveals multiple ways that women and underrepresented minorities can benefit radiology education, research, and practice. To achieve those benefits, promising practices promote developing and implementing strategies that support diversity as an institutional priority and cultivate shared responsibility among all members to create inclusive learning and workplace environments. Strategies also include providing professional development to empower and equip members to accomplish diversity-related goals. Among topics for professional development about diversity, unconscious bias has shown positive results. Unconscious bias refers to ways humans unknowingly draw upon assumptions about individuals and groups to make decisions about them. Researchers have documented unconscious bias in a variety of contexts and professions, including health care, in which they have studied differential treatment, diagnosis, prescribed care, patient well-being and compliance, physician-patient interactions, clinical decision making, and medical school education. These studies demonstrate unfavorable impacts on members of underrepresented groups and women. Learning about and striving to counteract unconscious bias points to promising practices for increasing the numbers of women and underrepresented minorities in the radiology and radiation oncology workforce.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity Matters in Academic Radiology: Acknowledging and Addressing Unconscious Bias

Allen

Garg

2016

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar data for the USA are not publicly available, but an historical analysis of data from 1987 found women were more likely to get their first choice of specialty and less likely not to be matched 15. More recent studies of radiology and anaesthesia residency selection found female applicants outperformed men 16 17…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of sex on specialty training application outcomes: a longitudinal administrative data study of UK medical graduates

Woolf

Jayaweera²,

Unwin

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.DesignRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.SettingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.Participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.Primary outcome measureOdds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.ResultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.

show abstract

“…Other investigators, using different study methods, have also found that bias does not explain their demographic disparities. Hewett et al investigated the historical underrepresentation of women in their radiology residency program and found that the disparity was better explained by insufficient number of female applicants to the program [29]. During the 7-year period of study, only 24% of applicants to their program were women.…”

Section: Behavioral Study Of Implicit Bias In Residency Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%