Gender Differences in Academic Rank and NIH Funding among Academic Maternal–Fetal Medicine Physicians in the United States

Abstract

Objective This article evaluates gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) physicians.

Study Design This was a cross-sectional study of board-certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the MFM fellowship Web sites. Academic rank and receipt of any NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected, including years since board certification, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index.

Results We identified 659 MFM physicians at 72 institutions, 312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p = 0.003). Adjusting for potential confounders, male MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank than female MFM physicians (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.39–2.94], p < 0.001). There was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians (aOR, 1.23 [0.79–1.92], p = 0.36).

Conclusion Compared with female academic MFM physicians, male academic MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank but were no more likely to receive NIH funding.

Keywords

gender - disparity - academic medicine - maternal–fetal medicine - academic promotion

• References

• 1 Ellis H. Elizabeth Blackwell: a pioneer female medical graduate. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2010; 71 (05) 281
• 2 Hofler LG, Hacker MR, Dodge LE, Schutzberg R, Ricciotti HA. Comparison of women in department leadership in obstetrics and gynecology with those in other specialties. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (03) 442-447
• 3 Mayer EN, Lenherr SM, Hanson HA, Jessop TC, Lowrance WT. Gender differences in publication productivity among academic urologists in the United States. Urology 2017; 103: 39-46
• 4 Morton MJ, Sonnad SS. Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. J Natl Med Assoc 2007; 99 (07) 764-771
• 5 Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature 2017; 541 (7638): 455-457
• 6 Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex differences in academic rank in US medical schools in 2014. JAMA 2015; 314 (11) 1149-1158
• 7 Reed DA, Enders F, Lindor R, McClees M, Lindor KD. Gender differences in academic productivity and leadership appointments of physicians throughout academic careers. Acad Med 2011; 86 (01) 43-47
• 8 Lopez SA, Svider PF, Misra P, Bhagat N, Langer PD, Eloy JA. Gender differences in promotion and scholarly impact: an analysis of 1460 academic ophthalmologists. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (06) 851-859
• 9 Seltzer VL. Changes and challenges for women in academic obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (04) 837-848
• 10 Baecher-Lind L. Women in leadership positions within obstetrics and gynecology: does the past explain the present?. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (06) 1415-1418
• 11 Eloy JA, Svider PF, Kovalerchik O, Baredes S, Kalyoussef E, Chandrasekhar SS. Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 149 (01) 77-83
• 12 Svider PF, D'Aguillo CM, White PE. , et al. Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (05) 680-688
• 13 Waisbren SE, Bowles H, Hasan T. , et al. Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2008; 17 (02) 207-214
• 14 Magua W, Zhu X, Bhattacharya A. , et al. Are female applicants disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers' critiques. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2017; 26 (05) 560-570
• 15 Kaatz A, Lee Y-G, Potvien A. , et al. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques, impact, and criteria scores: does the sex of the principal investigator make a difference? . Acad Med 2016; 91 (08) 1080-1088
• 16 Okeigwe I, Wang C, Politch JA, Heffner LJ, Kuohung W. Physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology: predictors of success in obtaining independent research funding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (01) 84.e1-84.e8
• 17 Hill EK, Blake RA, Emerson JB. , et al. Gender differences in scholarly productivity within academic gynecologic oncology departments. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (06) 1279-1284
• 18 Lennon CJ, Hunter JB, Mistry AM. , et al. NIH funding within otolaryngology: 2005-2014. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 157 (05) 774-780
• 19 Carnes M, Bartels CM, Kaatz A, Kolehmainen C. Why is John more likely to become department Chair than Jennifer?. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2015; 126: 197-214
• 20 Baecher-Lind L, Abbott J, Atkins KM. , et al. A call to action to address gender equity within our specialty: time's up on waiting for change. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (06) 961-963
• 21 Costas R, Bordons M. The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetrics 2007; 1 (03) 193-203