Perceptions of gender equity in departmental leadership, research opportunities, and clinical work attitudes: an international survey of 11 781 anaesthesiologists

Abstract

Background: Women make up an increasing proportion of the physician workforce in anaesthesia, but they are consistently under-represented in leadership and governance. Methods: We performed an internet-based survey to investigate career opportunities in leadership and research amongst anaesthesiologists. We also explored gender bias attributable to workplace attitudes and economic factors. The survey instrument was piloted, translated into seven languages, and uploaded to the SurveyMonkey® platform. We aimed to collect between 7800 and 13 700 responses from at least 100 countries. Participant consent and ethical approval were obtained. A quantitative analysis was done with c 2 and Cramer's V as a measure of strength of associations. We used an inductive approach and a thematic content analysis for qualitative data on current barriers to leadership and research. Results: The 11 746 respondents, 51.3% women and 48.7% men, represented 148 countries; 35 respondents identified their gender as non-binary. Women were less driven to achieve leadership positions (P<0.001; Cramer's V: 0.11). Being a woman was reported as a disadvantage for leadership and research (P<0.001 for both; Cramer's V: 0.47 and 0.34, respectively). Women were also more likely to be mistreated in the workplace (odds ratio: 10.6; 95% confidence interval: 9.4e11.9; P<0.001), most commonly by surgeons. Several personal, departmental, institutional, and societal barriers in leadership and research were identified, and strategies to overcome them were suggested. Lower-income countries were associated with a significantly smaller gender gap (P<0.001). Conclusions: Whilst certain trends suggest improvements in the workplace, barriers to promotion of women in key leadership and research positions continue within anaesthesiology internationally.

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study

“…The distributions of the COVID-19 and nonCOVID-19 publications on the levels of evidence pyramid were analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-squared statistics and Cramer’s V as the measure of strength of association (weak: >0.05; moderate: >0.10; strong: >0.15; very strong: >0.25) [ 32 ]. Further effect size estimations were performed on two by two contingency tables (split by level of evidence into high and low quality groups) and are reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).…”

Factors influencing the retention of participants in online cancer screening training programs in India

“…Earlier studies also concur with our results [ 16 ]. Zdravkovic et al in his recent publication, reports that women show more interest in clinical work compared to their male counterparts [ 17 ]. This could be one of the reasons for the better adherence of female participants in our course.…”

Distress and resilience of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic (DARVID): study protocol for a mixed-methods research project

“…The survey link will be primarily distributed through social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Threema), using the 'snowballing' sampling technique. [30][31][32] Later, personal contacts via email invitations from all of the authors will invite further study participants, with supporting (inter)national societies emailing the link via their own mailing lists to better distribute the survey. Contact persons are asked to further distribute the survey to promote the greatest number of responses as possible over the entire study period.…”