Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 27;18(1):95.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0561-1.

Gender differences in career development awards in United States' anesthesiology and surgery departments, 2006-2016

Affiliations

Gender differences in career development awards in United States' anesthesiology and surgery departments, 2006-2016

Lena M Mayes et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: Although the status of women in anesthesiology has advanced by many measures, obtaining career development funding remains challenging. Here, we sought to compare the characteristics of funded career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between the specialties of anesthesiology and surgery. We hypothesized that the two groups differ in percentage of faculty with awards, gender distribution among principal investigators, as well as the number of awards promoting diversity.

Methods: The NIH grant-funding database RePORT was queried for career development awards for the years 2006-2016 using the filters "Anesthesiology" and "Surgery." Grants were characterized based on the gender of the principal investigator and whether the funding opportunity announcement indicated promotion of underrepresented minorities (URM). The 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report on "Distribution of U.S. Medical School Faculty by Sex and Rank" was used to adjust comparisons according to baseline gender distributions in anesthesiology and surgery departments. Cohorts were characterized using descriptive methods and compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

Results: Based on our AAMC data query, in 2016, the number of women faculty members at the instructor or assistant professor level in U.S. medical schools was 2314 (41%) for anesthesiology and 2281 (30%) for surgery. Between 2006 and 2016, there were 88 career development grants awarded to investigators in anesthesiology departments compared to 261 in surgery departments. Of the grantees in each specialty, 29 (33%) were women in anesthesiology and 72 (28%) in surgery (P = 0.344). Awards to promote URM were identified for two grants (2%) in anesthesiology and nine grants (3%) in surgery (P = 0.737). Faculty members in surgery were more likely to receive an award than in anesthesiology (P < 0.0001), and women were less likely to receive an award than men (P = 0.026).

Conclusions: The major difference between US anesthesiology and surgery departments is that the number of faculty career development awards is significantly higher in surgery departments. Future efforts should aim to identify the reasons for such differences in order to inform strategies that can improve the likelihood for junior faculty members to receive career development funding.

Keywords: Anesthesiology; Career development; Diversity; Funding; Gender; Grants; Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved this study for exemption (protocol # 17–0304).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Career development awards in Anesthesiology and Surgery by funding mechanism. Comparison of award type by specialty using Chi-square test (P = 0.0001)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Career development awards in Anesthesiology and Surgery by gender of principal investigator (PI). There was no difference in the proportion of women grantees between the two specialties. Comparison using Chi square test (P = 0.344)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Reves JG. We are what we make: transforming research in anesthesiology: the 45th Rovenstine lecture. Anesthesiology. 2007;106(4):826–835. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000264772.71791.58. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwinn DA, Balser JR. Anesthesiology physician scientists in academic medicine: a wake-up call. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(1):170–178. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200601000-00023. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knight PR, Warltier DC. Anesthesiology residency programs for physician scientists. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(1):1–4. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200601000-00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ward DS, Hug CC, Jr, Zaidan JR, Sessler AD. What is FAER? The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(4):669–670. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31822e9323. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ramsay JG, Roizen M. SmartTots: a public-private partnership between the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS) Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22(10):969–972. doi: 10.1111/pan.12014. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources