This cross-sectional study examines racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of leadership in surgery departments at US medical schools.
Key Points
Question
How does the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among academic surgery department leaders in the US differ across roles and surgical specialties?
Findings
In this cross-sectional study of 2165 faculty at 165 surgical departments in the US and Puerto Rico, males outnumbered females across all leadership roles, and only 8.9% of leaders were of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Females and URiM surgical leaders were disproportionately clustered in roles such as vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion or vice chair of faculty development.
Meaning
Findings of this study suggest that females and URiM leaders are disproportionately clustered in roles that may not translate into future promotion.
Abstract
Importance
Surgical department chairs remain conspicuously nondiverse despite the recognized importance of diverse physician workforces. However, the extent of diversity among non-chair leadership remains underexplored.
Objective
To evaluate racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of surgical department chairs, vice chairs (VCs), and division chiefs (DCs) in the US.
Design, Setting, and Participants
For this cross-sectional study, publicly accessible medical school and affiliated hospital websites in the US and Puerto Rico were searched from January 15 to July 15, 2022, to collect demographic and leadership data about surgical faculty. Two independent reviewers abstracted demographic data, with up to 2 additional reviewers assisting with coding resolution as necessary. In all, 2165 faculty were included in the analyses.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Proportions of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among chairs, VCs, and DCs in general surgery and 5 surgical specialties (neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, and otolaryngology).
Results
A total of 2165 faculty (1815 males [83.8%] and 350 females [16.2%]; 109 [5.0%] African American or Black individuals; 347 [16.0%] Asian individuals; 83 [3.8%] Hispanic, Latino, or individuals of Spanish origin; and 1624 [75.0%] White individuals as well as 2 individuals [0.1%] of other race or ethnicity) at 154 surgical departments affiliated with 146 medical schools in the US and Puerto Rico were included in the analysis. There were more males than females in leadership positions at all levels—chairs (85.9% vs 14.1%), VCs (68.4% vs 31.6%), and DCs (87.1% vs 12.9%)—and only 192 leaders (8.9%) were from racial or ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Females occupied more VC than chair or DC positions both overall (31.6% vs 14.1% and 12.9%, respectively) and within racial and ethnic groups (African American or Black females, 4.0% VC vs 1.5% chair and 0.6% DC positions; P < .001). URiM individuals were most commonly VCs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, 51.6%) or faculty development (17.9%). Vice chairs of faculty development were split equally between males and females, while 64.5% of VCs for DEI were female. All other VCs were predominantly male. Among DC roles, URiM representation was greatest in transplant surgery (13.8%) and lowest in oral and maxillofacial surgery (5.0%). Except for breast and endocrine surgery (63.6% female), females comprised less than 20% of DC roles. Nearly half of DCs (6 of 13 [46.2%]) and VCs (4 of 9 [44.4%]) had no female URiM leaders, and notably, no American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals were identified in any surgical leadership positions.
Conclusions and Relevance
While it is unclear whether promotion from VC to chair or from DC to chair is more likely, these findings of similar gender distribution between chairs and DCs suggest the latter and may partially explain persistent nondiversity among surgical chairs. Female and URiM surgical leaders are disproportionately clustered in roles (eg, VCs of DEI or faculty development) that may not translate into future promotion to department chairs.
Introduction
Diversity is increasingly prioritized in the recruitment of trainees and physicians within academic medicine to ensure a physician workforce that adequately represents and can appropriately care for the diverse patient population we serve. Physicians from racial and ethnic minority groups have been shown to care for the majority of non–English-speaking and racial and ethnic minority patients in the US.1,2 Additionally, even when controlling for financial barriers to health care access, the racial and ethnic concordance of patients and physicians is directly associated with health care use.3,4 Furthermore, having diverse peers can enhance the educational experiences of all trainees regardless of race and ethnicity and can better prepare medical students in caring for diverse populations.5,6
Yet within the field of medicine, surgical specialties are particularly nondiverse compared with nonprocedural specialties, such as family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology.7 As of 2019, practicing surgeons in the US were approximately 9.1% Asian males and 3.5% Asian females, 3.7% Black males and 1.7% Black females, 4.6% Hispanic males and 1.7% Hispanic females, and 46.2% White males and 13.2% White females.8,9 The 2020 US Census approximated the US population as 6.0% Asian, 13.4% Black, 18.7% Hispanic, and 57.7% White.10 Yet by 2045, it is estimated that the US population will be predominantly composed of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups and those identifying as multiracial.10
Black and Hispanic individuals are underrepresented at all levels of surgical faculty.11 In 2020, of 116 general surgery department chairs, 11.2% were Asian or Pacific Islander individuals, 4.3% were Black individuals, 0.9% were Hispanic individuals, and 79.3% were White individuals.12 Retention rates are lower for Asian, Black, and Hispanic academic surgeons compared with White surgeons at the level of assistant professor,13 and, similarly, promotion rates are lower for women and faculty with races and ethnicities that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM).14,15 Likewise, female faculty are less likely to be promoted even after adjusting for factors such as racial and ethnic groups, department, effort distribution or time use (ie, teaching vs clinical care vs research), and publication-related productivity.16,17,18
While the literature on diversity among faculty and specifically among chairs has become more robust, diversity across multiple levels of surgical leadership remains underexplored. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among multiple levels of leadership in academic surgery at US medical schools. We hypothesized that racial, ethnic, and gender diversity would be lowest in the most senior leadership roles (eg, chair) and highest among less senior (eg, division chief) or newer (eg, Vice Chair of Wellness) leadership roles.
Methods
The cross-sectional study was designed by a multi-institutional team with individuals across levels of training and surgical specialties. All allopathic medical schools in the US and Puerto Rico were considered for inclusion. This cross-sectional study was approved by the Duke University and University of North Carolina Institutional Review Boards. Informed consent was not required because the study used publicly available data. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline was followed.
Leadership and Demographic Data
The leadership roles of interest are summarized in eTable 1 in Supplement 1. We began with a presumption of organizational structure in which divisions are subunits of departments, and sections are subunits of divisions. Leadership roles were broken into 3 large categories: chair, vice chair (VC), and division chief (DC). The chair included the chair of general surgery and chairs of 5 surgical subspecialties (neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, and otolaryngology). For analytic purposes, VC roles of academic affairs and wellness were combined, and clinical operations and perioperative services were combined, creating a total of 9 categories (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). There were 13 total DC categories (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). To account for variation in organizational structure between institutions, the division of general surgery was specifically used to differentiate between insulated divisions and divisions that encompassed a wider range of specialties. For example, if a general surgery division included cardiothoracic surgery, plastic surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, pediatric surgery, or urology, the head of the division was recorded as a VC and not as a DC to account for department size.
Data on race and ethnicity were categorized in accordance with the Association of American Medical Colleges as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; and other (all other races and ethnicities; the Association of American Medical Colleges does not delineate specific races and ethnicities in this group). Categories identified as URiM included American Indian or Alaska Native; African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin; and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.19
Data on leadership rank, race, ethnicity, and gender were collected from publicly available medical school and hospital websites. A list of US medical schools was formatted into an encrypted spreadsheet (Excel, version 16; Microsoft Corp). For medical schools with multiple hospital affiliations, the primary hospitals for medical school clerkships were included (eg, Yale New Haven Hospital was included as the hospital for Yale School of Medicine). Medical schools were excluded if they lacked publicly accessible information or had a decentralized campus in which a primary affiliated hospital could not be discerned.
Online organizational charts were consulted for medical schools and hospitals, if available. For programs without organizational charts, the department of surgery or equivalent website was manually navigated to identify leadership roles. Demographic data for individuals in leadership roles were collected by 2 independent reviewers. Race, ethnicity, and gender were determined based on official medical school physician profiles, hospital biographies, medical school and hospital websites, press releases, and reviewer determination. Conflicts between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. If 3 independent reviewers disagreed on any demographic element, the senior author (O.M.F.) was consulted for conflict resolution.
Racial, ethnic, and gender categorization was a key component of this study. Our approach was developed based on methods used in previous studies for classifying complex demographic traits using similar data sources.20 We acknowledge the limitations of relying on visual and textual information as the core data source. To overcome and preemptively address this issue, we refined our methods using an iterative process; included a diverse team of reviewers, which has been found to strengthen the reliability of coding21; used a multireviewer system, including face-to-face discussion for conflict resolution; and implemented broad categories (including an “other” category) to prevent mislabeling.22 We also identified our coding process as taking the perspective of an individual (eg, student, trainee, or faculty seeking a future position at an institution) who would rely on similar cues from online sources to discern the composition of a surgical department and coded based on how we thought the majority of people viewing the same information might classify an individual’s physical features. Additionally, we considered developing an artificial intelligence (AI) system for scraping website data and categorizing individuals; however, facial recognition AI remains ethically fraught and also carries the risk of inadvertently perpetuating stereotypes held by the individual developing the algorithm.23 Thus, we ultimately pursued a non-AI, multireviewer approach using diverse human contributors.
Data Collection
Data were initially collected between March 15 and August 15, 2021, as a pilot. Conflicts were discussed and the previously described methods for conflict resolution were operationalized after data collection. Formal data collection was conducted between January 15 and July 15, 2022. First-pass intercoder agreement was calculated by assessing reviewer concordance of every fifth medical school and estimated at 87% agreement across 3 reviewers.
Statistical Analysis
Race, ethnicity, and gender were summarized by role (chair, VC, and DC) and compared between groups using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
Results
Data from a total of 165 surgical departments affiliated with 146 medical schools in the US and Puerto Rico were reviewed, and 2165 faculty (1815 males [83.8%] and 350 females [16.2%]; 109 [5.0%] African American or Black individuals; 347 [16.0%] Asian individuals; 83 [3.8%] Hispanic, Latino, or individuals of Spanish origin; 1624 [75.0%] White individuals; and 2 individuals [0.1%] of other race or ethnicity) at 154 programs were included in the analysis. Eleven medical schools were excluded due to lack of publicly accessible data or unclear primary hospital affiliation. There were 3 medical schools where the chief of general surgery was considered a VC due to departments including multiple non–general surgery specialties.
Gender
Demographic data for department of surgery faculty leaders are summarized in the Table. There were more male faculty in leadership roles at all levels (eTable 2 in Supplement 1). The proportion of males vs females in leaderships roles is as follows: 85.9% vs 14.1% for chairs; 68.4% vs 31.6% for VCs; and 87.1% vs 12.9% for DCs (Figure 1). The proportion of female chairs was highest in obstetrics and gynecology (32.9%), and the proportion of male chairs was highest in neurosurgery (95.9%) and orthopedic surgery (95.3%). Female leaders were more often VCs (31.6%) than chairs (14.1%) or DCs (12.9%; P < .001). Among VCs, those for faculty development were split equally between males and females, whereas VCs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) had the highest proportion of female faculty (64.5%), and the executive VC role had the lowest proportion of females (11.4% other than general surgery VCs, which included no females) (eTable 2 in Supplement 1).
Table. Race, Ethnicity, and Gender by Academic Surgical Role.
| Characteristic | No. (%) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All faculty (N = 2165) | Chair (n = 780) | Vice chair (n = 329) | Division chief (n = 1056) | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 350 (16.2) | 110 (14.1) | 104 (31.6) | 136 (12.9) | <.001 |
| Male | 1815 (83.8) | 670 (85.9) | 225 (68.4) | 920 (87.1) | |
| Race and ethnicitya | |||||
| Asian | 347 (16.0) | 101 (12.9) | 52 (15.8) | 194 (18.4) | .01 |
| Black or African American | 109 (5.0) | 41 (5.3) | 27 (8.2) | 41 (3.9) | |
| Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin | 83 (3.8) | 23 (2.9) | 6 (1.8) | 54 (5.1) | |
| Otherb | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.1) | |
| White | 1624 (75.0) | 614 (78.7) | 244 (74.2) | 766 (72.5) | |
| URiM | |||||
| Non-URiM | 1973 (91.1) | 716 (91.8) | 296 (90.0) | 961 (91.0) | .61 |
| URiM | 192 (8.9) | 64 (8.2) | 33 (10.0) | 95 (9.0) | |
| Gender by race and ethnicity | |||||
| Female Asian | 59 (2.7) | 16 (2.1) | 22 (6.7) | 21 (2.0) | <.001 |
| Male Asian | 288 (13.3) | 85 (10.9) | 30 (9.1) | 173 (16.4) | |
| Female Black or African American | 31 (1.4) | 12 (1.5) | 13 (4.0) | 6 (0.6) | |
| Male Black or African American | 78 (3.6) | 29 (3.7) | 14 (4.3) | 35 (3.3) | |
| Female Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin | 10 (0.5) | 3 (0.4) | 1 (0.3) | 6 (0.6) | |
| Male Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin | 73 (3.4) | 20 (2.6) | 5 (1.5) | 48 (4.5) | |
| Female White | 250 (11.5) | 79 (10.1) | 68 (20.7) | 103 (9.8) | |
| Male White | 1374 (63.5) | 535 (68.6) | 176 (53.5) | 663 (62.8) | |
| Female otherb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Male otherb | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | 0 | 1 (0.1) | |
| Gender by URiM status | |||||
| Female non-URiM | 309 (14.3) | 95 (12.2) | 90 (27.4) | 124 (11.7) | <.001 |
| Male non-URiM | 1664 (76.9) | 621 (79.6) | 206 (62.6) | 837 (79.3) | |
| Female URiM | 41 (1.9) | 15 (1.9) | 14 (4.3) | 12 (1.1) | |
| Male URiM | 151 (7.0) | 49 (6.3) | 19 (5.8) | 83 (7.9) | |
Abbreviation: URiM, underrepresented in medicine.
For 2 faculty, information on gender was available for the chair and division chief roles but information on race and ethnicity was missing.
Other includes all other races and ethnicities; the Association of American Medical Colleges did not delineate specific races and ethnicities in this group.
Figure 1. Leadership Roles According to Gender by Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Status.
The proportion of female leadership in each DC role was similar to or less than the rate of female leaders in any leadership position (16.2%) except in the division of breast or endocrine surgery, in which females comprised the majority (63.6%; Figure 2). Proportions of male leadership in DC roles were highest in oral and maxillofacial surgery (100%), urology (94.8%), vascular surgery (93.0%), and cardiothoracic surgery (92.8%).
Figure 2. Gender Distribution of Surgical Division Chiefs by Specialty.
Race and Ethnicity
Across the roles of chair, VC, and DC, most surgeons were White individuals (75.0%), with only 8.9% of surgeons determined to be URiM. When examining racial and ethnic diversity within roles, chairs were predominately White individuals (78.7%), followed by Asian (12.9%), African American (5.3%), and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin (2.9%) individuals. The proportions of URiM leadership did not differ across the chair, VC, and DC roles. No American Indian or Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals were identified in these roles.
The proportion of URiM chairs was highest in obstetrics and gynecology (13.7%) and lowest in orthopedic surgery (3.9%). Among VC roles, URiM individuals were most likely to be VCs of DEI (51.6%) and faculty development (17.9%). Of the VCs of DEI who were URiM, 100% were African American. No URiM individual was a VC of research or general surgery. Among DC roles, URiM leadership was greatest in the divisions of transplant surgery (13.8%), colorectal surgery (12.7%), and breast and endocrine surgery (12.1%), and URiM leadership was lowest in divisions of oral and maxillofacial surgery (5.0%) and urology (5.2%). Individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups had greater representation among roles of DC for surgical oncology (36.5%) and cardiothoracic surgery (31.9%).
Intersectional Identity
Among chairs, analysis of intersectional gender, race, and ethnicity revealed that White males constituted the highest proportion (68.6%), followed by Asian males (10.9%) and White females (10.1%). Females held significantly more VC roles compared with chair or DC roles, and this held true when assessed across race and ethnicity, including White females (20.7% VC vs 10.1% chair vs 9.8% DC), African American females (4.0% VC vs 1.5% chair vs 0.6% DC), and Asian females (6.7% VC vs 2.1% chair vs 2.0% DC; P < .001). Six of the 13 DC categories (46.2%) and 4 of the 9 VC categories (44.4%) had no female URiM leaders. White males had the greatest representation in all DC positions except for DC of breast and endocrine surgery (for which White females were most represented). During the pilot period, the first Black female chairs of surgery in the US were appointed.24,25
Discussion
In this analysis of leadership in academic surgery, we found significant gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in representation not only—as already widely known—among surgery department chairs, but also among VC and DC roles across essentially all surgical specialties. These findings are consistent with those of prior studies that reported lower rates of racial and ethnic minority individuals and females among surgical faculty11 and the general lack of diversity among department chairs across many surgical specialties.26,27,28,29 However, the novelty of our study lies in the nuanced granularity of the analysis, which delves beyond the level of department chair to expose disparities in numerous types of leadership roles in surgical departments across a wide swath of specialties and the implications these disparities have for the pipeline to department chair.
Kassam et al12 published a study in 2021 that yielded some similar findings but was limited to assessing underrepresentation of minority surgeons among chairs, DCs, and VCs of education. They reported trauma surgery as the only surgical specialty with greater than 10% of DCs identifying as Black at the time; however, in the present study, with the exception of trauma surgery DCs (7.9% African American individuals), African American individuals constituted less than 6% of DCs for all other specialties. For VC of education, we found more women being represented (31.1% females vs 22.7% females reported by Kassam et al12), although racial and ethnic diversity decreased across racial groups. Thus, the differences in the findings of the present study vs those reported by Kassam et al12 suggest that changes at the level of VC of education may be due to an increase in the proportion of White female VCs.
As hypothesized, more URiM and female surgeons were appointed VC of DEI than any other leadership role. Vice chair of faculty development was split equally among females and males, whereas VCs in all other areas were predominantly male. Asian individuals were more likely than URiM faculty to be VC of research and, among the racial and ethnic minority faculty who were VCs of research, none were URiM. Although females continued to constitute a small proportion of leaders overall, they had greater representation among the ranks of VCs compared with the proportion of chairs and DCs. These findings suggest differences in promotion practices that may be underexplored. For example, 1 study found that women hold a greater proportion of program director positions compared with their underrepresentation at higher academic ranks.30 Similarly, we found that females are more likely to be in VC positions across all racial and ethnic groups compared with the total leadership pool or the proportion who are chairs.
While it is unclear whether promotion from VC to chair or from DC to chair is more likely, similar demographic compositions between chairs and DCs suggest the latter. If DCs are more likely to be promoted to the role of chair, the underrepresentation of URiM and female surgeons among DC roles coupled with clustering of URiM and female leaders in select roles (eg, VC of DEI) may help explain the persistent nondiversity of surgical chairs. One reason DCs may be more likely to become chairs is that the role of DC more closely resembles the organizational structure of chair than do the roles of VCs. Furthermore, the increased visibility of DCs as leaders within specific clinical divisions (eg, surgical oncology) may lend itself to more seamless transitions into a chair role.31
If the increased numbers of VC positions that have been created over time, such as DEI and wellness, represent roles with low, rigid ceilings and limited mobility, they represent at best unwitting and at worst insincere methods for promoting URiM and female surgeons while ultimately limiting their potential to become chairs of surgery. Indeed, even in obstetrics and gynecology, in which most practitioners have long been predominantly female, department chairs remain predominantly male, indicating the importance of examining to what extent female obstetricians and gynecologists disproportionately find that they are not on the path to becoming chairs. Similarly, the argument that there are currently too few URiM or female surgeons with 10 to 20 years of experience in the selection pool for surgery VCs and chairs is not substantiated when one considers the substantial increase in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the late 1990s and early 2000s among US medical students, who would be eligible for precisely those levels of leadership at this time.32
We recognize, however, that many of these more recent VC positions may also reflect departmental or institutional realization of the need for leadership in important, previously neglected areas or well-intentioned efforts to expand opportunities and expedite professional development for individuals who may not yet be prepared for DC or chair roles but could be groomed for these positions. Due to the overall recency of these roles, the long-term implications of holding these VC positions for future leadership assignments cannot be concretely discerned. We do not wish for the findings of the present study to dissuade institutions from creating said opportunities for leadership. We do, however, encourage critical examination of not only these roles as they are developed but also of the opportunities, authority, and resources being afforded to their faculty while they hold them and once they look to advance beyond them.
Despite the lack of differences in non-URiM vs URiM groups across leadership tiers, we did observe differences between White and racial and ethnic minority groups, a finding that is likely driven by increased representation of Asian faculty within the field of surgery. We found fewer Asian surgeons in roles of chair compared with VC and DC in relation to the total population of Asian surgeons in leadership, a phenomenon often referred to as the bamboo ceiling.33 While racial and ethnic minority and URiM faculty share some similarities in our data (eg, higher proportions of VC of DEI), there are unique differences between underrepresented and overrepresented minorities in medicine. Future studies may benefit from a more nuanced analysis of Asian surgeons in leadership, as data in the present suggest underlying differences between Asian vs URiM and Asian vs White surgeons toward leadership.
Limitations
This analysis represents a snapshot of surgical leadership; thus, it is possible that there were coding errors due to lag time from leadership appointment to website updates. Collecting and tracking these demographic changes over time would have provided more context on the progress that has or has not been made; however, the lack of publicly accessible information on changes to these leadership positions over time by each institution (eg, who held the position previously) precluded us from conducting temporal analyses. The data collection process also revealed heterogeneity in organizational structures, and our attempts to standardize leadership positions may have obfuscated some differences. We may also have made errors in determining the primary hospitals affiliated with medical school surgery departments.
We did not see statistically significant differences in URiM representation across leadership roles, which may reflect oversimplification of more complex but relatively sparse data. For example, even among some of the largest groups of VCs, there were no (eg, VC of research) or only 1 URiM faculty (eg, VC of education). Thus, the 8.9% rate of faculty identifying as URiM reflects proportions of 0% to 3% among certain VC positions, and the small sample sizes within these positions do not lend themselves well to statistical testing or generalization.
Our data were manually collected and subject to human error. Intercoder agreement was 87%, suggesting the potential for individual reviewer bias in the coding process. The assumptions that were made based on publicly accessible identity-based information, although similar to how individuals may be perceived in any clinical or professional setting, is a major limitation of this study. To mitigate this risk, we implemented a multireviewer system with individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, it is possible that we did not accurately capture racial, ethnic, and gender categories given that the assumptions made particularly about gender identity were based on publicly available data including photos, pronouns, society memberships, and other potentially misinterpreted contextual information.
In this analysis, we focused on specific leadership roles within surgical departments; however, a successful career in academic surgery looks different for different surgeons. Assessing career satisfaction was outside of the scope of this study, and future qualitative research may contextualize our findings.
Conclusions
This cross-sectional study found that female and URiM faculty remain underrepresented among surgery chairs, VCs, and DCs. We found that females and URiM surgical leaders are disproportionately clustered in select roles (eg, VC of DEI) that may not translate into future promotion. While it is unclear whether promotion from VC to chair or from DC to chair is more likely, similar gender distribution between chairs and DCs suggest the latter and may partially explain persistent nondiversity among surgical chairs. Future directions of research should include longitudinal examination and comparison of how prior leadership roles (eg, DC vs VC) impact future opportunities for promotion (eg, chair); assessment of how the disparities we observed may affect the progress and promotion of diverse junior faculty within departments; and identification of strategies for remediating the disparities we observed.
eTable 1. Types of Leadership Roles
eTable 2. Table of Race and Ethnicity and Gender by Position–Chairs and Vice Chairs
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Marrast LM, Zallman L, Woolhandler S, Bor DH, McCormick D. Minority physicians’ role in the care of underserved patients: diversifying the physician workforce may be key in addressing health disparities. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):289-291. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Moy E, Bartman BA. Physician race and care of minority and medically indigent patients. JAMA. 1995;273(19):1515-1520. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520430051038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ma A, Sanchez A, Ma M. Racial disparities in health care utilization, the Affordable Care Act and racial concordance preference. Int J Health Econ Manag. 2022;22(1):91-110. doi: 10.1007/s10754-021-09311-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ku L, Vichare A. The association of racial and ethnic concordance in primary care with patient satisfaction and experience of care. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(3):727-732. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07695-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Whitla DK, Orfield G, Silen W, Teperow C, Howard C, Reede J. Educational benefits of diversity in medical school: a survey of students. Acad Med. 2003;78(5):460-466. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200305000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Saha S, Guiton G, Wimmers PF, Wilkerson L. Student body racial and ethnic composition and diversity-related outcomes in US medical schools. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1135-1145. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.10.1135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nguemeni Tiako MJ, Dolan A, Abrams M, Oyekanmi K, Meisel Z, Aronowitz SV. Thematic analysis of state Medicaid buprenorphine prior authorization requirements. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(6):e2318487. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.18487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Association of American Medical Colleges . Diversity in medicine: facts and figures 2019. Table 12. Practice specialty, females by race/ethnicity, 2018. Accessed January 29, 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/table-12-practice-specialty-females-race/ethnicity-2018
- 9.Association of American Medical Colleges . Diversity in medicine: facts and figures 2019. Table 13. Practice specialty, males by race/ethnicity, 2018. Accessed January 29, 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/table-13-practice-specialty-males-race/ethnicity-2018
- 10.US Census Bureau . 2017 National population projections tables: main series. Accessed January 7, 2023. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html
- 11.Riner AN, Herremans KM, Neal DW, et al. Diversification of academic surgery, its leadership, and the importance of intersectionality. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(8):748-756. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kassam AF, Taylor M, Cortez AR, Winer LK, Quillin RC III. Gender and ethnic diversity in academic general surgery department leadership. Am J Surg. 2021;221(2):363-368. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.11.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Abelson JS, Wong NZ, Symer M, Eckenrode G, Watkins A, Yeo HL. Racial and ethnic disparities in promotion and retention of academic surgeons. Am J Surg. 2018;216(4):678-682. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Xierali IM, Nivet MA, Syed ZA, Shakil A, Schneider FD. Recent trends in faculty promotion in U.S. medical schools: implications for recruitment, retention, and diversity and inclusion. Acad Med. 2021;96(10):1441-1448. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nunez-Smith M, Ciarleglio MM, Sandoval-Schaefer T, et al. Institutional variation in the promotion of racial/ethnic minority faculty at US medical schools. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(5):852-858. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Richter KP, Clark L, Wick JA, et al. Women physicians and promotion in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2148-2157. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1916935 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Carr PL, Raj A, Kaplan SE, Terrin N, Breeze JL, Freund KM. Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the National Faculty Survey. Acad Med. 2018;93(11):1694-1699. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Battaglia F, Farhan SA, Narmeen M, et al. Does gender influence leadership roles in academic surgery in the United States of America? a cross-sectional study. Int J Surg. 2020;83:67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.American Association of Medical Colleges . FACTS glossary. Accessed January 7, 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/interactive-data/facts-glossary
- 20.Myers T, Richardson F, Chung JE. Racial and ethnic makeup in hospital’s social media and online platforms: visual representation of diversity in images and videos of Washington, D.C. hospitals. J Health Commun. 2019;24(5):482-491. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1617807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Michel C, Rossion B, Han J, Chung CS, Caldara R. Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(7):608-615. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01752.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.McCall SE. Thinking outside of the race boxes: a two-pronged approach to further diversity and decrease bias. BYU Educ LJ. 2018;23. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2018/iss1/3
- 23.Mathis MS, Badewa TE, Obiarinze RN, Wilkinson LT, Martin CA. A novel use of artificial intelligence to examine diversity and hospital performance. J Surg Res. 2021;260:377-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Rajchel SF. Dr. KMarie King Named Chair of Surgery at Albany Med. Accessed January 20, 2023. https://www.news10.com/news/new-appointment-at-albany-med-breaks-racial-barrier-nationally/
- 25.Cornelius M. Howard University names Andrea A. Hayes, M.D., Chair of the Department of Surgery. August 26, 2021. Accessed January 20, 2023. https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/howard-university-names-andrea-hayes-md-chair-department-surgery
- 26.Singh SK, Bi A, Kurlansky PA, Argenziano M, Smith CR. A cross-sectional review of cardiothoracic surgery department chairs and program directors. J Surg Educ. 2021;78(2):665-671. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Shah DN, Volpe NJ, Abbuhl SB, Pietrobon R, Shah A. Gender characteristics among academic ophthalmology leadership, faculty, and residents: results from a cross-sectional survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17(1):1-6. doi: 10.3109/09286580903324892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zhang B, Chen K, Ha G, et al. Plastic surgery chairs and program directors: are the qualifications different for men and women? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(2):217e-220e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bi AS, Fisher ND, Bletnitsky N, Rao N, Egol KA, Karamitopoulos M. Representation of women in academic orthopaedic leadership: where are we now? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(1):45-56. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Radford DM, Parangi S, Tu C, Silver JK. h-Index and academic rank by gender among breast surgery fellowship faculty. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2022;31(1):110-116. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Roper RL. Does gender bias still affect women in science? Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2019;83(3):e00018-e00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Andriole DA, Klingensmith ME, Schechtman KB. Diversity in general surgery: a period of progress. Curr Surg. 2005;62(4):423-428. doi: 10.1016/j.cursur.2005.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lee F. Asian American and Pacific Islander faculty and the bamboo ceiling: barriers to leadership and implications for leadership development. New Dir Higher Educ. 2019;(186):93-102. doi: 10.1002/he.20326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eTable 1. Types of Leadership Roles
eTable 2. Table of Race and Ethnicity and Gender by Position–Chairs and Vice Chairs
Data Sharing Statement