Have a personal or library account? Click to login
When perception is reality: Resident perception of faculty gender parity in a university-based internal medicine residency program Cover

When perception is reality: Resident perception of faculty gender parity in a university-based internal medicine residency program

Open Access
|Nov 2019

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Resident perception of gender parity

Men residents

Women residents

P value

Extremely unsatisfied/unsatisfied a

Satisfied/extremely satisfied a

Extremely unsatisfied/unsatisfied a

Satisfied/extremely satisfied a

Are you satisfied with your residency training experience?

 0 (0%)

34 (94%)

 0 (0%)

32 (97%)

N/A

Strongly disagree/disagree a

Agree/strongly agree a

Strongly disagree/disagree a

Agree/strongly agree a

Women are appropriately represented in senior positions in the department of internal medicine

17 (41%)

19 (45%)

32 (70%)

 6 (13%)

p = 0.000773

There is equal representation of both men and women teaching faculty on the wards and in clinics

11 (26%)

23 (55%)

24 (52%)

13 (28%)

p = 0.006194

There is equal representation of both men and women faculty as discussants at educational conferences and grand rounds

14 (33%)

19 (45%)

23 (50%)

13 (28%)

p = 0.0741

aBased on 5‑point Likert scale

Fig. 1

Faculty gender distribution by division, Department of Internal Medicine (2017)

40037_2019_532_Fig1_HTML.png

Fig. 2

Gender distribution of leadership roles, Department of Internal Medicine (2017) (atotal number of positions available) [2325]

40037_2019_532_Fig2_HTML.png

Table 2

Gender distribution and relative gender parity in leadership and faculty teaching roles, Department of Internal Medicine (2017)

Men

Women

P value

Departmental leadership rolesa

  21 (95%)

  1 (5%)

p = 0.000312 (Chi-squared)b

p = 0.0001 (Fisher exact)b

Educational leadership rolesc

  23 (79%)

  6 (21%)

p = 0.018086 (Chi-squared)b

p = 0.0206 (Fisher exact)b

Total inpatient faculty attending weeks

1298 (69%)

578 (31%)

p < 0.00001 (Z score test for two proportions)b

Total intensive care unit attending weeks

 260 (84%)

 50 (16%)

p= 0.0271 (Z score test for two proportions)d

Continuity clinic attending

  23 (45%)

 28 (55%)

p = 0.62414 (Z score test for two proportions)e

Inpatient morning report facilitators

 172 (80%)

 42 (20%)

p < 0.00001 (Z score test for two proportions)b

Ambulatory morning report facilitators

 142 (69%)

 63 (31%)

p = 0.00398 (Z score test for two proportions)b

Noon conference facilitators

  42 (72%)

 16 (28%)

p= 0.03662 (Z score test for two proportions)b

aPooled department chair, associate chairs and division chiefs

bCompared with gender representation in overall internal medicine faculty

cPooled program director, associate program directors, and fellowship program directors

dCompared with gender representation in pulmonary and critical care faculty only

eCompared with gender representation in division of general medicine only

Fig. 3

Gender distribution of teaching faculty on clinical services or education conference facilitator/presenter, Department of Internal Medicine (2017) (ainpatient time measured in number of weeks per year, bcontinuity clinic attendings assigned to half day per week for whole academic year, coccurs daily Monday–Friday, doccurs two times weekly, eoccurs once weekly (excluded monthly Morbidity and Mortality conference lead by CMRs from analysis))

40037_2019_532_Fig3_HTML.png

Language: English
Published on: Nov 14, 2019
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2019 Jennifer Reilly Lukela, Aditi Ramakrishnan, Nicole Nicole Hadeed, John Del Valle, published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.