The Role of Gender in Ophthalmology Resident Evaluations

Abstract

Background Gender affects various aspects of medical training. Prior research in surgical specialties has shown that female residents are given less positive feedback, granted less autonomy in the operating room, perform fewer procedures, and achieve competency milestones at a slower rate as compared with their male counterparts.

Purpose The purpose of this research is to evaluate whether gender affects ophthalmology resident evaluations at a single institution.

Methods Ophthalmology resident evaluations at a single residency program from 2010 to 2018 were reviewed. Data were collected on faculty gender, resident gender, and year of resident training. A linear mixed-effects model was utilized to analyze the degree to which differences in evaluation scores could be predicted from demographic data, while accounting for multiple sources of nonindependence of data.

Results A total of 490 evaluations for 43 residents by 34 faculty were analyzed. Evaluations consisted of up to 23 questions graded on a scale from 0 (poor) to 9 (excellent). Female residents received marginally higher scores than male residents on average (coefficient of male residents = −0.2). Both male and female residents received marginally lower scores from male faculty than from female faculty on average (coefficient of male faculty = −0.21). Male faculty also appeared to have scored male residents lower to a greater degree than did female faculty (coefficient of male faculty by male resident interaction = −0.14), though this result was sensitive to model specifications. There was no significant interaction between year of resident training and gender.

Conclusion In contrast to other procedural specialties, female residents appear to have been graded at a similar level or higher than male residents on average. Male faculty gave slightly lower scores to both male and female residents than female faculty did. Male faculty also may have graded male residents marginally lower than female residents to a greater degree than female faculty did.

Keywords

ophthalmology - resident education - medical education - disparity - gender

• References

• 1 More women than men enrolled in U.S. medical schools in 2017. AAMCNews. 2017 . Available at: https://news.aamc.org/press-releases/article/applicant-enrollment-2017/ . Accessed June 20, 2019
• 2 Distribution of residents by specialty, 2005 compared to 2015. AAMC. 2016 . Available at: https://www.aamc.org/download/481180/data/2015table2/ . Accessed June 20, 2019
• 3 Serrano K. Women residents, women physicians and medicine's future. WMJ 2007; 106 (05) 260-265
• 4 Gerull KM, Loe M, Seiler K, McAllister J, Salles A. Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents. Am J Surg 2019; 217 (02) 306-313
• 5 Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, Dayal A, O'Connor DM, Arora VM. Gender differences in attending physicians' feedback to residents: a qualitative analysis. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9 (05) 577-585
• 6 Hoops H, Heston A, Dewey E, Spight D, Brasel K, Kiraly L. Resident autonomy in the operating room: does gender matter?. Am J Surg 2019; 217 (02) 301-305
• 7 Meyerson SL, Sternbach JM, Zwischenberger JB, Bender EM. The effect of gender on resident autonomy in the operating room. J Surg Educ 2017; 74 (06) e111-e118
• 8 Dayal A, O'Connor DM, Qadri U, Arora VM. Comparison of male vs female resident milestone evaluations by faculty during emergency medicine residency training. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (05) 651-657
• 9 Gong D, Winn BJ, Beal CJ. , et al. Gender differences in case volume among ophthalmology residents. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.2427
• 10 Reddy AK, Bounds GW, Bakri SJ. , et al. Differences in clinical activity and medicare payments for female vs male ophthalmologists. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135 (03) 205-213
• 11 Reddy AK, Bounds GW, Bakri SJ. , et al. Representation of women with industry ties in ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016; 134 (06) 636-643
• 12 Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67 (01) 1-48 . Doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
• 13 Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest Package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 2017; 82 (13) 1-26 . Doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
• 14 Fox J, Weisberg S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 2019
• 15 Wickham H. Tiddyverse: Easily Install and Load the 'Tidyverse'. 2017 . R package version 1.2.1. Available at: https://tidyverse.tidyverse.org/ . Accessed date July 25, 2019
• 16 Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2016
• 17 Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 151-169
• 18 Phillips NA, Tannan SC, Kalliainen LK. Understanding and overcoming implicit gender bias in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 1111-1116
• 19 Valian V. Beyond gender schemas: improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia 2005; 20 (03) 198-213
• 20 Porter N, Geis FL. Women and nonverbal leadership cues: when seeing is not believing. In: Mayo C, Henley N. , eds. Gender and Nonverbal Behavior. New York, NY: Springer; 1981
• 21 Project Implicit. Implicit social cognition 2011. Available at: https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html . Accessed November 24, 2019
• 22 Maina IW, Belton TD, Ginzberg S, Singh A, Johnson TJ. A decade of studying implicit racial/ethnic bias in healthcare providers using the implicit association test. Soc Sci Med 2018; 199: 219-229
• 23 Mimouni M, Zayit-Soudry S, Segal O. , et al. Trends in authorship of articles in major ophthalmology journals by gender, 2002–2014. Ophthalmology 2016; 123 (08) 1824-1828
• 24 Svider PF, D'Aguillo CM, White PE. , et al. Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. J Surg Educ 2014; 71 (05) 680-688