Women as Radiologists: Are There Barriers to Entry and Advancement?

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2005.10.001

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 131-134

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2005.10.001 Get rights and content

Purpose

In consideration of the fact that women constitute only 25% of radiology residents, even though they constitute 45% of medical students, this study was conducted to determine if the trend of women choosing radiology as a career differs from that for other medical specialties and if there are differences on the basis of the gender of program directors or geographic location. The authors also wished to determine if constraints exist that prevent women from advancing into positions of leadership in radiology.

Method

The percentage of women in each of the 186 radiology residency programs was compiled to determine the mean and standard deviation of women represented and from those data to examine if there were patterns of exclusion related to program size, location, or the gender of program directors. The membership and committee lists of the ACR and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) were examined to gauge the participation of women as leaders in these 2 organizations, as were the mastheads of Radiology and the American Journal of Roentgenology. The number of female chairs of academic departments was also examined.

Results

Over the past decade, the percentage of women in diagnostic radiology residencies has remained remarkably constant at or slightly above 25%. There was no discernable prejudice against women applicants by program size, location, or program director gender. In both the ACR and the RSNA, women are represented in positions of leadership approximately in proportion to their percentage in the general membership. Journal mastheads have fewer women than might be expected given the participation of women in academic radiology. There are a small but increasing number of women chairing academic radiology departments.

Conclusion

The relatively low percentage of women in diagnostic radiology residencies is not a reflection of the gender of program directors. Women are represented in positions of influence and authority in major organizations in American radiology in proportion to the overall number of women in the organization. However, women continue to be underrepresented in radiology chair positions. Explanations must be sought for the relative unattractiveness of radiology to prospective women residents and barriers to the advancement of women in academic radiology.

Introduction

In 2004, women were the recipients of 44% of the medical degrees granted in the United States [1]. This past year has seen women reach parity with men in the number of applicants to American medical schools. These percentages reflect a continuation of a more than decade-long demographic trend toward greater participation by women in the medical profession. Correspondingly, for most residencies, women constitute an increasingly larger fraction of the total complement of trainees [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. One notable exception is diagnostic radiology, which has seen no appreciable change in the percentage of female residents in the past 10 years. Are there gender-related barriers to admission among a substantial number of programs that in the aggregate limit the overall number of women in training in our specialty? And at the same time, is there demonstrable evidence of the restriction of female radiologists from advancement to positions of responsibility in the hierarchy of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and the ACR, the 2 organizations whose many members come from all types of imaging practices and from all sections of the country? The purpose of this study was to examine these 2 questions to determine if an inference of bias can be drawn relative to the issues of initial acceptance and later leadership in our specialty.

Section snippets

Material and methods

The number and percentage of radiology residents and residents in all specialties in each year over the past decade are listed in the annual medical education issue of JAMA [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. A roster of radiologists in training in 2003, available by name, gender, and program, was obtained from the ACR’s register of residents. Demographic information with respect to the distribution of women residents was provided by the membership department of the ACR and by the corresponding

Entry Into Radiology Residencies

Currently, there are just under 100,000 trainees in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–approved residency programs in the United States. Over the past decade, the percentage of women in all residencies in the United States rose from 27.2% in 1995 [10] to 37.3% in 1999 [6] and then to 40.0% in 2003 [2]. Further increases should be expected, because women constitute 45% of the 66,677 students currently matriculating [1].

Despite the increasing number of women residents in

Discussion

The failure of radiology to attract more women medical students is troubling. Even though their number continues to increase, the percentage of women in diagnostic imaging training programs remains static. Most likely, the reasons are multifactorial and may involve such influences as attitudes toward work, technology, training length, patient interaction, and exposure to radiology mentors during the basic science and clerkship years of medical school [13, 14]. Perhaps even more subtle

References (20)

K.H. Vydareny et al.
Career advancement of men and women in academic radiologyis the playing field level?
Acad Radiol
(2000)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(2004)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(2003)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(2002)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(2001)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(2000)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(1999)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(1998)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(1997)
Graduate medical education
JAMA
(1996)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (63)

New England Women in Radiology (NEWR) Invited Lectureship Series: A Novel Program to Advance the Careers of Junior Female Faculty in Academic Radiology
2023, Academic Radiology
The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the New England Women in Radiology (NEWR) program, a new program aimed to generate speaking and networking opportunities for junior women radiologists in New England, by providing opportunities to speak at other academic institutions in the region.
A total of 12 academic radiology departments and 20 faculty members at various New England institutions participated in the program during its first year. An institutional survey was sent to all participating institutions and a faculty survey was sent to all participating faculty to assess their experience with the program. Experience was measured using a Likert scale. A word cloud was used to visualize common themes in free response survey questions.
Hundred percent of participating institutions and 67% of participating faculty responded to the corresponding surveys. Hundred percent of responding faculty indicated that they would participate in the program again. Ninety-two percent of faculty said that they would recommend the program to a colleague. Fifty-eight percent found the networking opportunity valuable; while 83% believed that participation in the NEWR program would help them achieve a promotion. Hundred percent of the participating institutions who completed the survey strongly agreed that 1) the program was easy to administer, 2) participating in the program was valuable to their educational mission, and 3) participating in the program benefited the promotion of junior women faculty in their department.
Initial experience with the NEWR program in its first year was positive amongst both faculty and institutional participants. To further help female junior faculty advance their careers in academia, the NEWR program could be adapted to other geographical locations to incorporate a greater number of institutions and faculty.
Gender-Based Survey Analysis of Research and Mentoring in Interventional Radiology
2022, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
This study sought to define gender-related differences in attitudes, perceptions, and aspirations among trainees interested in interventional radiology (IR) and to analyze their experiences in research and mentorship.
A cross-sectional survey study was conducted among the members of the Society of Interventional Radiology Resident, Fellow, and Student section and Medical Student section in the summer of 2020. The anonymous, internally validated 27-item survey assessed demographics, research attitudes and experiences, mentorship, and career aspirations. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Fisher exact analyses and Student t-tests. The institutional review board approved the protocols for this study.
Of 105 respondents who indicated their gender, 30% were women and 70% were men. Although both genders reported similar levels of research experience, female trainees were less likely to feel valued and encouraged by their institution to engage in research (2.79 out of 4 vs 3.16 out of 4, P = .02) and were less likely to indicate that their program required them to participate in research (2.47 vs 3.06, P = .01). Female residents and fellows reported more difficulty in finding a mentor (2.88 vs 3.28, P = .04) and received less mentorship relating to IR education (29% vs 64%, P = .002).
This work provides a perspective on the perceived obstacles faced by female trainees in pursuing research and finding effective mentorship in the field of IR. These data may guide future interventions to boost interest and engagement in IR research and residency programs in a way that promotes gender diversity and equity in the field.
National Institutes of Health: Gender Differences in Radiology Funding
2022, Academic Radiology
Radiology has traditionally remained one of the most male-dominated specialties, although a higher proportion of women are now beginning to occupy roles as academic radiologists than their male counterparts. The present study investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding within Diagnostic Radiology stratified by gender, and correlated with measures of academic output, including h-index.
Data on funding was obtained from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results for fiscal years 2016–2019, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables.
Of the 2929 grants included in this analysis, 1789 (61.07%) were awarded to male PIs and 1140 (38.9%) to female PIs. Among PIs holding a PhD degree, male PIs had a higher mean grant amount ($619,807.00) compared to female PIs ($158,486.00).
Although female representation within academic radiology has been increasing, the mean NIH grants awarded to women is less than that awarded to men. Reasons for this are numerous and may include differential prioritization of career objectives among men and women, although such rationalization is inevitably speculative in nature. Significant gender differences in NIH funding were seen at the PhD level, and the strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the h-index of female PIs. These results underscore the fact that women are ostensibly being held to a higher academic standard than men in terms of funding decisions.
Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists
2022, Academic Radiology
In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists’ scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists’ career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.
National Survey to Assess Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Differences Among Radiology Residency Applicants Regarding Factors Impacting Program Selection
2021, Academic Radiology
Radiology has one of the lowest female representation rates in medicine and recruiting female residents is a challenge for some residency programs. There is limited understanding of gender differences among residency applicants during program selection. The study objective is to investigate which program factors were considered most important by radiology residency applicants and to assess for differences by gender, race and ethnicity.
An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs in the US and Canada via the Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR). Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 30 factors during evaluation of residency programs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important).
370 residents and 1 fellow completed the survey. Of the respondents, 269 were male (72.5%) and 101 were female (27.2%). The most important factors to respondents during program selection were program culture (4.42), geographic location (4.17), fellowship placement (4.14), and imaging and/or procedure volume (3.98). There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in the importance of program culture (p = 0.002), composition of current residents (p = 0.007), percentage of current female residents (p < 0.0001), program size (p = 0.047), call schedule (p = 0.025), percentage of female faculty (p < 0.0001), faculty ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), resident ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), which female respondents ranked more highly.
Applicants consider many factors during residency program selection. Program culture, geographic location, fellowship placement and imaging and/or procedural volume were most important. There were significant differences by gender, race and ethnicity in importance of several factors.
Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America
2021, Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Citation Excerpt :
At the next level up, low numbers of women hold leadership positions among global radiology societies with only Denmark and El-Salvador having more than 50% female representation on their leadership boards.10 The number of women in editorial roles for major radiology journals is less than expected, even given their representation in academic radiology.28 The lack of female leadership mentors in radiology is pervasive29 and may, in itself, dampen aspirations.10
In the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.
A list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.
Four hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).
Gender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Original articleWomen as Radiologists: Are There Barriers to Entry and Advancement?

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Section snippets

Material and methods

Entry Into Radiology Residencies

Discussion

Acad Radiol

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Graduate medical education

JAMA

Original article
Women as Radiologists: Are There Barriers to Entry and Advancement?