The interventional radiology gender gap: perspectives from the international IR training survey

Abstract

Objective: This study sought to examine international interventional radiology (IR) training standards and perceptions. This survey aims to identify gender-based barriers and inequities effecting uptake, retention and experience of trainees in IR.

Methods: An anonymous survey was created using Survey Monkey and distributed as a single-use weblink via eight IR national and international societies around the world. Data analysis was conducted to highlight gender-specific trends and identify any differences.

Results: Motivation factors given for following a career in IR revealed gender differences in factors such as mentoring (8.7 F vs 21.6% M) and influence from senior colleagues (15.2 F vs 25.0% M). The overwhelming majority across both genders (82.6 F vs 81.3% M) agreed or strongly agreed that early exposure to IR training at Year 1 had a positive impact on career choice. A good work life balance was positively reported in 48.2% of female respondents compared to 45.2% in males. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the various aspects of IR training. All differences observed between genders, exceeded the 0.05 significance level.

Conclusion: This survey offers many insights into the current international landscape of IR training. Ongoing evaluation is vital to inform recruitment practices and initiatives to bridge gender inequities and attract more females into IR.

Advances in knowledge: This study has revealed that increasing and optimising mentoring opportunities may be the first step in increasing awareness of IR and maximising potential female recruits.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of selection of the survey participants.

Figure 2.

A continent and gender-specific breakdown of participants (blue = male, green = female).

Figure 3.

Gender-specific breakdown of participants’ qualifications, number and types of memberships in IR societies and stage in training. (a) Qualifications, (b) Numbers of memberships to IR societies, (c) Society memberships, (d) Stage in training. Abbreviations: IR,interventional radiology; IRF, IR fellow; JIRC, Junior IR consultant; Y2IR, year 2 IR trainee; Y3IR, year 3 IR trainee; Y4IR, year 4 IR trainee; Y5IR, year 5 IR trainee.

Figure 4.

Gender-specific views on early exposure to IR. (a) At which grade do you/did you have your first exposure to IR in your current training scheme? (b) How much exposure to IR do you have/did you have in your first 2 years of training? (c) Was your educational supervisor and/ or training program director happy for you to attend IR sessions during the first year of your training? (d) Do you feel early exposure to IR (at Year 1) has an impact on career choice? IR, interventional radiology.

Figure 5.

Gender-specific breakdown of views on IR training. (a) Would more training in clinical skills be useful for a career in IR? (b) Do you feel that these combined lists help your training? (c) Do you receive reciprocal training by the other specialty consultants? (d) Do you feel your IR training is affected by the presence of trainees from other specialties? IR, interventional radiology.

Figure 6.

Gender-specific views on specific training opportunities. (a) Training opportunities in interventional oncology procedures. (b) Training opportunities in your scheme in CT-guided ablation therapies. (c) Training opportunities in your scheme in hepatobiliary interventions. (d) Training opportunities in urological interventions. (e) Training opportunities in your scheme in endovascular aortic procedures.

Figure 7.

Future intentions and promoting IR. (a) Immediate career plan, (b) Which area of IR do you hope to work/subspecialise in? (c) Would you recommend IR training to your juniors/ colleagues in other specialities? (d) Do you use social media to promote IR? IR, interventional radiology.