These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Female Representation and Implicit Gender Bias at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Annual Scientific and Tripartite Meeting.
    Author: Davids JS, Lyu HG, Hoang CM, Daniel VT, Scully RE, Xu TY, Phatak UR, Damle A, Melnitchouk N.
    Journal: Dis Colon Rectum; 2019 Mar; 62(3):357-362. PubMed ID: 30451743.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Women surgeons are underrepresented in academic surgery and may be subject to implicit gender bias. In colorectal surgery, women comprise 42% of new graduates, but only 19% of Diplomates in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the representation of women at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Scientific and Tripartite Meeting and assessed for implicit gender bias. DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study. SETTING: The study occurred at the 2017 Tripartite Meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the percentage of women in the formal program relative to conference attendees and forms of address. METHODS: Female program representation was quantified by role (moderator or speaker), session type, and topic. Introductions of speakers by moderators were classified as formal (using a professional title) or informal (using name only), and further stratified by gender. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of meeting attendees who are ASCRS members were women, with higher percentages of women as Candidates (44%) and Members (35%) compared with Fellows (24%). Women comprised 28% of moderators (n = 26) and 28% of speakers (n = 80). The highest percentage of women moderators and speakers was in education (48%) and the lowest was in techniques and technology (17%). In the 41 of 47 sessions evaluated, female moderators were more likely than male moderators to use formal introductions (68.7% vs 54.0%, p = 0.02). There was no difference when female moderators formally introduced female versus male speakers (73.9% vs 66.7%, p = 0.52); however, male moderators were significantly less likely to formally introduce a female versus male speaker (36.4% vs 59.2%, p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: Yearly program gender composition may fluctuate. Low numbers in certain areas limit interpretability. Other factors potentially influenced speaker introductions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, program representation of women was similar to meeting demographics, although with low numbers in some topics. An imbalance in the formality of speaker introductions between genders was observed. Awareness of implicit gender bias may improve gender equity and inclusiveness in our specialty. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A802.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]