Abstract
Women are underrepresented at higher ranks in academic medicine. However, the factors contributing to this disparity have not been fully elucidated. Implicit bias and unconscious mental attitudes toward a person or group may be factors. Although academic medical centers use physician trainee evaluations of faculty to inform promotion decisions, little is known about gender bias in these evaluations. To date, no studies have examined narrative evaluations of medical faculty by physician trainees for differences based on gender. To characterize gender-associated linguistic differences in narrative evaluations of medical faculty written by physician trainees. This retrospective cohort study included all faculty teaching evaluations completed for the department of medicine faculty by medical students, residents, and fellows at a large academic center in Pennsylvania from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2018, through July 31, 2018. Word use in faculty evaluations was quantified using automated text mining by converting free-text comments into unique 1- and 2-word phrases. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to assess associations of faculty gender with frequencies of specific words and phrases present in a physician trainee evaluation. A total of 7326 unique evaluations were collected for 521 faculty (325 men [62.4%] and 196 women [37.6%]). The individual words art (odds ratio [OR], 7.78; 95% CI, 1.01-59.89), trials (OR, 4.43; 95% CI, 1.34-14.69), master (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.69-10.63), and humor (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.44-3.73) were significantly associated with evaluations of male faculty, whereas the words empathetic (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.56-12.07), delight (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.35-13.40), and warm (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.83-6.49) were significantly associated with evaluations of female faculty. Two-word phrases associated with male faculty evaluations included run rounds (OR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.01-59.84), big picture (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 1.68-30.42), and master clinician (OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.21-13.36), whereas evaluations of female faculty were more likely to be associated with model physician (OR, 7.75; 95% CI, 1.70-35.39), just right (OR, 6.97; 95% CI, 1.51-32.30), and attention (to) detail (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.36-13.40). The data showed quantifiable linguistic differences between free-text comments about male and female faculty in physician trainee evaluations. Further evaluation of these differences, particularly in association with ongoing gender disparities in faculty promotion and retention, may be warranted.
Highlights
Women compose half of all US medical school graduates,[1] recent evidence has shown ongoing sex disparities in academic job achievements and academic promotion.[2,3,4,5,6,7,8] women in medicine represent only 38% of academic faculty and 15% of senior leadership positions across the United States.[9]
Two-word phrases associated with male faculty evaluations included run rounds (OR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.01-59.84), big picture (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 1.68-30.42), and master clinician (OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.21-13.36), whereas evaluations of female faculty were more likely to be associated with model physician (OR, 7.75; 95% CI, 1.70-35.39), just right (OR, 6.97; 95% CI, 1.51-32.30), and attention detail (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.36-13.40)
Meaning The findings suggest that quantitative linguistic differences between free-text comments about male and female medical faculty may occur in physician trainee evaluations
Summary
Women compose half of all US medical school graduates,[1] recent evidence has shown ongoing sex disparities in academic job achievements and academic promotion.[2,3,4,5,6,7,8] women in medicine represent only 38% of academic faculty and 15% of senior leadership positions across the United States.[9]. There is robust evidence[2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] showing the presence of these sex differences, the factors leading to disparities in faculty retention and promotion have not been fully elucidated. One potential influence may be implicit bias, namely unconscious mental attitudes toward a person or group.[10] Evidence suggests that implicit biases pervade academia, influencing hiring processes,[11] mentorship,[12] publication,[4] and funding opportunities.[13,14,15] In previous studies,[16,17,18,19] implicit gender bias has been quantitatively and qualitatively shown in evaluation of nonmedical academic faculty. Similar biases have been noted in medical education within narrative evaluations of physician trainees written by medical faculty.[20,21] despite the critical role of evaluations from physician trainees in promotion decisions for medical faculty, the presence of gender bias within evaluations of medical faculty written by physician trainees has not been adequately assessed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
