Chronic Imbalance? Gender Disparities in Gastroenterology Across a Decade of the Visceral Medicine Congress in Germany

Abstract

Background and aims

Despite efforts toward gender equality, disparities persist in medical careers and leadership. This study examines gender representation in gastroenterology at the German Visceral Medicine Congress from 2013 to 2024, focusing on changes over time.

Methods

Programs from 1,333 sessions were analyzed for gender ratios of speakers and chairs, including plenary, ab-stract, and industry sessions, plus congress presidents and awardees. Trends were assessed via linear regression and Cochran-Armitage tests.

Results

Trend analysis revealed a significant increase in female speakers (r²=0.599, p=0.005) and chairpersons (r²=0.747, p<0.001). Female speaker proportions rose significantly in plenary (r²=0.600, p=0.005), abstract (r²=0.445, p=0.025), and industry sessions (r²=0.641, p=0.003), but did not reach parity. Female chairs showed stronger upward trends: plenary (r²=0.807, p<0.001), abstract (r²=0.490, p=0.016), industry (r²=0.729, p<0.001). Congress presidencies remained all male, and 75–93% of awards went to men.

Conclusion

Female representation, especially in chair roles, has improved since the 2019 parity resolution but remains insufficient in key areas. Ongoing gender-sensitive planning and support are needed to foster a more inclusive academic environment.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Zielsetzung

Trotz Bemühungen um Geschlechtergerechtigkeit bestehen weiterhin Disparitäten in medizinischen Karrieren und Führungspositionen. Diese Studie untersucht die Geschlechterrepräsentation in der Gastroenterologie beim Deutschen Viszeralmedizin-Kongress von 2013 bis 2024 mit Fokus auf zeitliche Veränderungen.

Methoden

Die Programme von 1333 Sitzungen wurden hinsichtlich der Geschlechterverteilung von Vortragenden und Sitzungsleitern analysiert, darunter Plenar-, Abstract- und Industriesitzungen sowie Kongresspräsident:innen und Preisträger:innen. Trends wurden mittels linearer Regression und Cochran-Armitage-Test bewertet.

Ergebnisse

Es zeigte sich ein signifikanter Anstieg weiblicher Referentinnen (r²=0.599, p=0.005) und Sitzungsleiterinnen (r²=0.747, p<0.001). Der Anteil weiblicher Referentinnen stieg signifikant in Plenar- (r²=0.600, p=0.005), Abstract- (r²=0.445, p=0.025) und Industriesitzungen (r²=0.641, p=0.003), erreichte jedoch keine Parität. Weibliche Sitzungsleiterinnen zeigten stärkere Zuwächse: Plenar- (r²=0.807, p<0.001), Abstract- (r²=0.490, p=0.016) und Industriesitzungen (r²=0.729, p<0.001). Kongresspräsidentschaften blieben vollends männlich dominiert, ebenso erhielten 75–93% der Preise Männer.

Schlussfolgerung

Die weibliche Repräsentation, insbesondere bei Sitzungsleitungen, hat sich seit der Paritätsresolution 2019 verbessert, bleibt jedoch in zentralen Bereichen unzureichend. Fortgesetzte geschlechtersensible Planung und institutionelle Unterstützung sind erforderlich, um eine inklusivere akademische Umgebung zu fördern.

Keywords

gender gap - gender disparities - visceral medicine congress - gastroenterology - women in medicine

Schlüsselwörter

Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede - Geschlechterdisparitäten - Kongress für Viszeral Medizin - Gastroenterologie - Frauen in der Medizin

Introduction

Participation in distinguished medical congresses, either as speaker or chairperson, constitutes a pivotal element in the progression of academic careers in medicine. These events offer significant opportunities for career advancement by enhancing visibility and establishing an academic reputation. Nevertheless, a gender imbalance to the detriment of female academics is evident at these congresses [1] [2] [3] [4]. Conversely, the distribution observed at congresses does not accurately reflect the actual demographic of either medical students or practicing physicians, which are more akin to parity distribution. Although women have been historically underrepresented among medical students in Germany, a notable shift has been observed over recent decades. Since 1975, when female representation was at 29%, there has been a steady increase in female students; in 1998, gender parity was achieved in medical school enrolments for the first time [5]. In fact, as of 2023, women constitute the majority of medical students (65%) in Germany [5], showing that gender inequity in medicine is no longer a pipeline problem. Indeed, as of 2023, there are 428.474 physicians in Germany – excluding those who are retired or not currently practicing medicine – of which 49% are female [6]. Conversely, this distribution is not reflected in leadership positions and career opportunities for female physicians. Indeed, women continue to be severely underrepresented in medical leadership positions; according to a recent report by the German Association of Women Physicians (Deutscher Ärztinnenbund e.V. /DÄB), the percentage of female hospital directors was at 15% in 2024 [7]. Within the domain of internal medicine, where women constitute 42% of practitioners [6], the proportion was even lower at 11% [7]. A comparable inequity is observed at medical congresses; while this phenomenon is not exclusive to any particular field – a pervasive gender imbalance across diverse academic domains, geographical regions, and professional congresses has been consistently demonstrated [8] [9] [10] – but it is in particular true for the field of medicine. Indeed, this phenomenon has been researched at congresses for radiology [2], psychology [11], emergency medicine [4], neuroimmunology [12], orthopaedic surgery [13], and infectious disease [1], among others. Concerning gastroenterology, recent studies have indicated a marked gender disparity with regards to participation at major congresses [3] [14]. Here, the gender gap is evident in the roles of invited speakers, chairpersons, panellists, and moderators – with women exhibiting a monumental underrepresentation. The persistence of gender disparities at these congresses engenders and upholds considerable disadvantages for women regarding career advancement and academic recognition.

In order to assess gender equity in gastroenterology, this analysis explored the roles occupied by women at the prestigious German Visceral Medicine Congress over the period from 2013–2024. Furthermore, an analysis was conducted of the gender distribution among congress presidents between 1913 and 2024, as well as of the scientific prizes awarded by the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

Methodology

This investigation is based on a systematically compiled dataset collected and analysed between December 2024 and March 2025. The primary aim of this study was to conduct a detailed analysis of the gender representation among speakers and chairpersons in the field of gastroenterology at the annual Visceral Medicine Congress during the period from 2013–2024. Additionally, the gender distribution among congress presidents and award recipients was evaluated. The overarching objective was to identify and assess potential gender disparities within these roles.

Speaker and Chairperson Selection Processes

While abstract presentation sessions are open to submission, speakers for the prestigious plenary sessions and industry symposia are selected by invitation. The procedures governing these invitation-based selections remain non-transparent, with no publicly available information pertaining to selection criteria. Likewise, the process for appointing chairpersons lacks publicly accessible documentation.

German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases’ Parity Resolution

The DGVS board issued a parity resolution concerning gender balance among congress session chairs in May 2019.

Data Processing and Gender Attribution Protocol

To ensure methodological rigor, a predefined internal protocol was established for data collection, the resolution of missing or ambiguous data, and the definition of analytical boundaries, including temporal cut-off points and gender attribution roles. Gender assignment was performed based on names listed in official congress program booklets. Researcher 1 conducted the initial attribution. A blind review of the results was subsequently undertaken by Researcher 2 to enhance objectivity. Abbreviated names or names that could not be unequivocally associated with a specific individual, despite extensive research, were classified as “cannot be assigned”. This category also included unisex names and names lacking sufficient cultural context to allow for definitive gender attribution. Importantly, gender assignment was based solely on publicly available name-based indicators and not intended to determine or imply an individual’s gender identity. As such, gender identity was not included in the analysis. The potential for classification bias is acknowledged; however, due to the innate limitation of the source data, it was not feasible to quantify or adjust for such bias.

Temporal Scope, Confounding Factors and External Influences

The analytical timeframe was defined a priori to span the years 2013 to 2024. This period was selected to capture potential external influences and adjust for confounding factors; such as the implementation of the “women quota” legislation (Gesetz für die gleichberechtigte Teilhabe von Frauen und Männern an Führungspositionen in der Privatwirtschaft und im öffentlichen Dienst (FüPoG)), the DGVS Board’s 2019 parity resolution concerning gender parity in congress chairpersonship, and the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022. The fixed temporal scope was intended to minimize analytical distortions and ensure consistent evaluation across relevant socio-political and institutional milestones. Therefore, the year 2020 was excluded from the analysis – no in-person Congress was held during this period due to the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Data Collection and Extraction

Program booklets from the annual Visceral Medicine Congress, covering the years from 2013 onward, were downloaded and reviewed as primary source material. It is important to note that no standardized nomenclature is employed across these documents – names are inconsistently listed in full or in abbreviated form (e.g. initials), and affiliations were inconsistently presented alongside the names. Between January 1^st and February 1^st, 2025, Researcher 1 conducted gender attribution for each listed individual, using a systematic online search in accordance with the pre-established methodological protocol. This process was guided by contextual information available within the program booklets, including institutional affiliation and thematic area of presentation. A standardized data collection form was employed for each year under investigation. Following initial data extraction, the dataset was subjected to a randomized, blinded internal consistency review, conducted by researcher 2. Any discrepancies identified during this phase were resolved through deliberation within the research team; gender was only assigned when consensus was achieved. For names listed in abbreviated form, or for which immediate identification was not possible, ResearchGate was used to locate the corresponding abstract and/or associated publications. When available, accompanying photographs aided in gender attribution. Individuals whose gender was recorded as “cannot be assigned” were excluded from the analysis. In total, this affected twenty-three cases (0.18%). Additionally, culturally specific names, as well as unisex names, were always further investigated and put to discussion. Verification was sought via institutional websites of the listed affiliation, particularly by identifying gendered salutations. Names such as “Kim” were considered unisex while culturally variant names such as “Andrea (female in Germany, male in Italy) were examined in their respective linguistic and cultural contexts.

Synthesis

The scope of this analysis was restricted to data related to the field of gastroenterology, explicitly excluding sessions pertaining to endoscopy and visceral surgery. Data synthesis followed a structured procedure: initially, entries were categorized based on a revised classification scheme adapted from the congress’s original program structure. Subsequently, data was organized into three primary domains to facilitate domain-specific gender distribution analysis: (1) plenary sessions; (2) abstract sessions; (3) industry symposia ([Fig. 1]). A further analysis was conducted on interdisciplinary sessions; however, as these do not exclusively concern gastroenterology content, the analysis under discussion falls outside the scope of the present analysis (Supplementary Data: Figure 1 A+B).

Fig. 1 Schematic Visualisation of Data Synthesis. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease.

Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis SPSS Statistics software, version 29.0.2.0 (SPSS, IBM, Armonk, NY), and GraphPad PRISM, version 10.4.2 (GraphPad Software, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) were employed, additional graphs were created with python. Trend analysis of female proportion of speakers and chairs was conducted via linear regression, while overall trend analysis was conducted via Cochran-Armitage test for trends. The gender-specific speaker distribution for plenary versus abstract sessions was evaluated using a chi-square test with Yate’s correction. In addition, comparisons of the gender-specific number of chairpersons in the year pre- (2018) and post- (2019) the implementation of the DGVS parity resolution, was conducted via Fisher’s exact test. As the parity resolution is only applicable for chairpersons, this analysis was not conducted for the data on speakers. The year 2020 was excluded from the analysis as there was no in-person congress in 2020 due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that was ongoing at that time.

Results

Trend analysis: female proportions among speakers (2013–2024)

Between 2013 and 2024, female proportions among speakers demonstrated notable shifts. A trend analysis of the changes in proportion was significant for the overall category (r²=0.599; p=0.005). In addition, the individual domains were examined, revealing that the change in proportion from 2013 to 2024 was significant for plenary sessions (r²=0.600; p=0.005), for abstract sessions (r²=0.445; p=0.025) and industry symposia (r²=0.641; p=0.003). Nevertheless, these trends were small ([Fig. 2] A–D).

Fig. 2 A–D. Results of linear regression analysis for trends show for (A) overall sessions a significant temporal shift for female proportions among speakers (r²=0.599; p=0.005) and chairs (r²=0.747; p<0.001); and (B) for speakers in plenary sessions (r²=0.600; p=0.005) and chairs (r²=0.807; p<0.001); and (C) for speakers in abstract sessions (r²=0.445; p=0.025) and chairs (r²=0.490; p=0.016); and (D) for speakers in industry symposia (r²=0.641; p=0.003) and chairs (r²=0.729; p<0.001).

Trend analysis: female proportion among chairpersons (2013–2024)

A trend analysis of the changes in female proportion among chairpersons was significant for the overall category (r²=0.747; p<0.001). Again, the individual domains were examined, revealing that the changes in proportion from 2013 to 2024 were significant for plenary sessions (r²=0.807; p<0.001), abstract sessions (r²=0.490; p=0.016), and industry symposia (r²=0.729; p<0.001), with consistent positive trends ([Fig. 2] A–D).

Trend analysis of gender distribution for speakers (2013–2024)

A trend analysis of speaker gender from 2013–2024 showed a significant change (p<0.001). From 2013 up to 2021, men consistently constituted at least 71% of speakers overall, peaking at 81% in 2014. However, in 2022, women surpassed the 30% mark for the first time, accounting for 36% of speakers. Examining individual domains revealed clear disparities. The gender distribution in plenary sessions showed a marked trend, with an increasing number of female speakers (p<0.001). Male speakers dominated plenary sessions, peaking at 88% (2014). A significant change was observed from 2021 onwards, with women making up at least 20% of plenary speakers each year; peaking at 36% in 2023. The overall trend in abstract sessions was more subdued but nonetheless significant (p=0.005). Here, women made up at least 31% of all speakers, peaking at 44% in 2022. Meanwhile, the analysis for industry symposia showed a more pronounced trend (p<0.001). While men consistently made up the majority of speakers (67%-92% over the years), female representation more than doubled from 15% in 2013 to 33% in 2024 ([Table 1]).

Table 1 Results of Cochran-Armitage test for trends of gender distribution of speakers and chairs from 2013 to 2024 and results from Fisherʼs exact test for comparison of the gender distribution pre- and post-implementation of the DGVS parity resolution. * Cochran-Armitage test for trend; ‡ Fisherʼs exact test.

	SPEAKERS			CHAIRPERSONS
	Men	Women		Men	Women
Domain	n (%)	n (%)	p*	n (%)	n (%)	p*
Overall			<0.001			<0.001
2013	395 (71%)	161 (29%)		204 (85%)	37 (15%)
2014	468 (81%)	112 (19%)		183 (88%)	26 (12%)
2015	477 (77%)	140 (23%)		195 (85%)	35 (15%)
2016	567 (75%)	194 (25%)		244 (85%)	44 (15%)
2017	558 (77%)	471 (23%)		219 (87%)	32 (13%)
2018	562 (76%)	176 (24%)		220 (88%)	30 (12%)	‡<0.001
2019	580 (74%)	208 (26%)		158 (61%)	101 (39%)
2021	455 (72%)	178 (28%)		109 (64%)	61 (36%)
2022	489 (64%)	271 (36%)		117 (64%)	72 (36%)
2023	430 (64%)	245 (36%)		103 (66%)	69 (40%)
2024	427 (66%)	221 (34%)		129 (61%)	82 (39%)
Plenary			<0.001			<0.001
2013	178 (79%)	48 (21%)		135 (85%)	23 (15%)
2014	252 (88%)	34 (12%)		125 (86%)	21 (14%)
2015	247 (84%)	46 (16%)		116 (82%)	25 (18%)
2016	217 (83%)	46 (17%)		140 (84%)	27 (16%)
2017	237 (85%)	43 (15%)		121 (83%)	24 (17%)
2018	208 (82%)	47 (18%)		128 (88%)	18 (12%)	‡<0.001
2019	229 (83%)	47 (17%)		84 (60%)	57 (40%)
2021	184 (80%)	45 (20%)		51 (59%)	36 (41%)
2022	201 (72%)	80 (28%)		55 (54%)	47 (46%)
2023	151 (64%)	85 (36%)		45 (54%)	38 (46%)
2024	187 (71%)	75 (29%)		53 (53%)	47 (47%)
Abstracts			0.005			<0.001
2013	177 (63%)	106 (37%)		48 (77%)	14 (23%)
2014	157 (69%)	72 (31%)		44 (90%)	5 (10%)
2015	171 (66%)	89 (34%)		55 (86%)	9 (14%)
2016	278 (66%)	141 (34%)		80 (83%)	16 (17%)
2017	248 (68%)	122 (32%)		65 (90%)	7 (10%)
2018	271 (69%)	120 (31%)		68 (88%)	9 (12%)	‡<0.001
2019	269 (64%)	152 (36%)		39 (49%)	41 (51%)
2021	195 (62%)	118 (38%)		32 (57%)	24 (43%)
2022	213 (56%)	164 (44%)		42 (71%)	21 (29%)
2023	225 (61%)	142 (39%)		35 (56%)	28 (44%)
2024	205 (61%)	129 (39%)		39 (61%)	25 (39%)
Industry Symposia			<0.001			0.001
2013	40 (85%)	7 (15%)		21 (100%)	0
2014	59 (91%)	6 (9%)		14 (100%)	0
2015	59 (92%)	5 (8%)		24 (96%)	1 (4%)
2016	72 (91%)	7 (9%)		24 (96%)	1 (4%)
2017	73 (92%)	6 (8%)		33 (97%)	1 (3%)
2018	83 (90%)	9 (10%)		24 (89%)	3 (11%)	‡0.686
2019	82 (90%)	9 (10%)		35 (92%)	3 (8%)
2021	76 (84%)	15 (16%)		26 (96%)	1 (4%)
2022	75 (74%)	27 (26%)		20 (83%)	4 (17%)
2023	54 (75%)	18 (25%)		23 (88%)	3 (12%)
2024	35 (67%)	17 (33%)		37 (79%)	10 (21%)

Trend analysis of gender distribution for chairpersons (2013–2024)

A trend analysis of the overall gender distribution among chairpersons, demonstrated a significant change from 2013 to 2024 (p<0.001). From 2013 to 2018, men constituted at least 85% of chairpersons and up to 88% in 2014, and 2018, respectively. In 2019, women exceeded the 30% threshold for the first time, reaching 39% of chairpersons and peaked at 40% in 2023. A thorough examination of the individual domains revealed clear disparities. Analysis of plenary chairpersons shows a consistent pattern: men 53%–88% (women 12%–47%), with the trend being significant (p<0.001). From 2013 to 2018, men constituted at least 83% of chairpersons in abstract sessions, peaking at 90% in 2014, and 2017, respectively. From 2019, a shift in the percentual gender distribution was observed when women represented the majority of chairpersons in abstract sessions with 51%. However, the next years saw a considerable decline in female representation (43% in 2021; 29% in 2022). Yet overall, the abstract sessionsʼ gender distribution exhibited a trend, marked by an increase in the number of female chairpersons (p<0.001). Meanwhile, a review of industry symposium chairpersonsʼ gender from 2013–2024 shows men consistently outnumbered women, peaking at 100% in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The range of female representation was 0% (2013) to 10% (2024). Subsequently, the trend in industry symposia gender distribution was significant over the years (p=0.001), but low in total ([Table 1]).

Impact of the 2019 DGVS parity resolution

Considering the DGVS board’s parity resolution in 2019, a notable increase in the overall proportion of female chairpersons has been observed in gastroenterology sessions, with a jump from 12% in 2018 to 39% in 2019 (p<0.001). For a nuanced analysis, a comparison of the gender distribution pre- and post-implementation of the resolution was conducted. The change in gender distribution of chairpersons in gastroenterology plenary sessions from 2018 to 2019 was significant (p<0.001). This trend was also observed in the abstract sessions (p<0.001), but not in the industry symposia (p=0.686) ([Table 1]).

Comparison of speaker gender distributions in plenary versus abstract sessions (2013–2024)

A comparative analysis was conducted on the gender distribution in plenary and abstract sessions for the period from 2013 to 2024. Over these years, disparities were observed, with female representation being significantly lower in the plenary session in 2013 (p=0.019), 2014 (p=0.001), 2015 (p=0.005), 2016 (p=0.009), 2017 (p=0.004), 2018 (p=0.048), 2019 (p=0.003), 2021 (p=0.008), and 2022 (p=0.031) (Suppl. Data: Figure 2 A–K).

Gender Parity Dynamics – Female speaker and chairperson representation over time

Overall, the proportion of female speakers in gastroenterology sessions at the German Visceral Medicine congress did not reach parity once in the timeframe from 2013 to 2024. In general, the proportion of female representation is highest among abstract sessions. By contrast, industry symposia have consistently exhibited the lowest proportion of female representation, with the exception of the data from 2024 ([Fig. 3]A). Overall, the proportion of female chairpersons in gastroenterology sessions at the German Visceral Medicine congress shows an upwards trend towards parity. Noteworthy is that for 2019 the proportion of female chairpersons in abstract sessions was recorded as 51% ([Fig. 3]B).

Fig. 3 A. Trends in percentual representation of women among (A) speakers from 2013 to 2024, excluding 2020. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease. B. Trends in percentual representation of women among (B) chairpersons from 2013 to 2024, excluding 2020. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease.

Congress Presidencies and Awards

From 2013 to 2024, the congress presidencies of the DGVS were occupied by men (100%) without exception. It is noteworthy that, since the first DGVS congress in 1913, the position of congress president has never been held by a woman ([Fig. 4]A+B).

Fig. 4 A. Gender distribution of the leadership position at the German Visceral Medicine Conference from (A) 2013 to 2024. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease. B. Gender distribution of the leadership position at the German Visceral Medicine Conference from (B) 1913 to 2012. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease.

Data on awards and medals indicates a persistent disparity, with men consistently dominating these domains. For instance, 93% of the prestigious Ismar Boas Medal, and 75% of the Ismar Boas Award, were awarded to men. Likewise, the Thannhauser Medal and Thannhauser Award have been predominantly awarded to men (92% and 90% respectively). Meanwhile, women make up the majority of recipients of the doctoral DGVS scholarships (65%) ([Fig. 5]).

Fig. 5 Gender distribution of awards and medals recipients. DGVS – German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Disease.

Discussion

As part of ongoing gender equity assessments in academic medicine, this study analysed female representation at the German Visceral Medicine Congress from 2013 to 2024, focusing on presidents, session chairs, and speakers to evaluate progress toward gender equity in gastroenterology. Women were most visible in abstract sessions, consistently surpassing 30%, yet remained underrepresented in plenary sessions, with female participation below 30%, except for a notable increase to 36% in 2023. This pattern aligns with extant literature showing women’s significant underrepresentation in prestigious speaking roles such as plenaries, keynotes, and invited lectures, while being more frequent in abstract sessions [2] [4] [11] [15] [16]. This phenomenon can be attributed to a number of factors, including that women are less likely to receive invitations for such high-status speaking engagements [17] as is evident in the present analysis of plenary sessions and, in particular, industry symposia, where presentations were by invitation only. Men accounted for 67–92% of speakers at these sessions and although the proportion of women exceeded 30% for the first time in 2024 (33%) it remains to be seen whether this is a real change or rather an exception. This is further in line with a recent analysis on data from the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW), which shows a pronounced gender gap in industry-supported abstracts, with 84.1% of men to 15.9% of women [14]. A direct comparison with data from the American Digestive Disease Week (DDW) conference (62.2% versus 37.8%, p = .009) revealed that the UEGW data was significantly worse. This can be partly attributed to systemic efforts to promote diversity in American gastroenterology, while there does not yet appear to be a European equivalent [14]. This discrepancy further illustrates the persistent structural inequalities in European gastroenterology and highlights the urgent need for targeted measures.

While it has been suggested that women are less inclined to speak in public [18], this does not translate to a more frequent decline of invitations – on the contrary – with regards to prestigious colloquium talks – it has been shown that there is no difference between the sexes as to the rate of invitation acceptance/decline when controlling for confounders [19]. Furthermore, a lack of women in senior academic roles has been proposed as an explanation for their underrepresentation, yet evidence indicates that women remain under-invited relative to men even in contexts where they comprise a substantial portion of senior researchers [20]. A possible further reason contributing, is the proven tendency of male-dominated committees and networks to extend invitations to men [20]. This corresponds to research findings indicating that gender equity in presentations at congresses is enhanced when women lead congress organisations responsible for speaker selection [12]. In addition, it has been demonstrated that achieving a more equitable gender distribution in speaking roles is contingent upon an overall balanced gender ratio among congress attendees [15]. Beyond invitation disparities, women who do present publicly often face harsher evaluations, negative stereotypes, and increased scrutiny compared to men [21]. This may contribute to women’s shorter average presentation durations noted in prior studies [4] [15]. Such disparities diminish female visibility in academia and reinforce false stereotypes that few qualified women physicians and researchers exist—myths sustained by systemic sexism rather than lack of expertise [22] [23] [24].

As demonstrated in the present study, the high percentage of doctoral scholarships for female physicians and the comparatively higher percentage of women speakers in abstract sessions are indicative of the scientific expertise among women. Nevertheless, the existence of systematic barriers has been demonstrated, with the result that female professionals are unable to overcome the glass ceiling – shown here by the underrepresentation of female physicians and researchers, both in plenary and industry sessions, and among prestigious award recipients; with detrimental implications for career advancements. Indeed, the study also highlighted a marked gender gap in prestigious awards, consistent with literature showing women receive fewer and less influential honours, limiting academic advancement [25] [26] [27] [28].

Analysis of chairpersons revealed more progress toward parity than among speakers, largely attributed to the 2019 DGVS parity resolution. This supports findings that proactive program committee policies foster equitable gender representation [1]; thus further emphasising the necessity for targeted interventions initiated at the top to promote gender equity. Yet, these positive trends require cautious interpretation: the apparent increase in female chairs for industry sessions mainly reflects very low baseline numbers before 2023, with female chairs never exceeding four annually, compared to 14–35 male chairs. This underscores that observed gains remain insufficient and that further interventions are needed to secure meaningful, lasting change. Research findings have further indicated that the likelihood of achieving gender equity in scientific presentations at congresses increases, when women occupy leadership roles authorised to select speakers [12]. This factor has been demonstrated to significantly enhance the probability of attaining gender parity in scientific presentations at congresses [12]. The election of a female DGVS congress president for the annual German Visceral Medicine Congress could therefore be a potential first step towards achieving gender equity and it is expected to take place for the first time ever in 2026.

Conclusion and Limitations

Female researchers and physicians in gastroenterology remain underrepresented at the German Visceral Medicine Congress, hindering the field’s full potential. While gender parity among chairpersons materialized – with women comprising 51% of chairs once in abstract sessions following the DGVS parity resolution – speakers never achieved parity over 11 years. The selection of a female Congress president in 2026 is a milestone but must be more than symbolic; sustained top-down commitment is essential to achieve lasting equity.

The study’s limitations, including its reliance on assigned gender, must be acknowledged. The methodology, which assigned names to a binary gender, is problematic as names are unreliable indicators of gender as gender cannot be fully represented by a name. As such, the study does not address gender identity, recognising that binary gender assumption based on names may misrepresent individuals’ identities. Potential bias is further introduced into the analysis due to the opaque nature of the selection procedures employed for participation invitations, for which no publicly accessible information regarding selection criteria is available. The data is further limited by the unavailability of data on the gender distribution of invited speakers and chairpersons who declined participation, preventing full understanding of potential biases in the selection process. It is further imperative to acknowledge the inherent bias in the data on awards and medals. This is due to the unavailability of applicant’s or nominee’s gender distribution information for the entire timeframe under consideration. Consequently, statistical analysis could not be conducted on this data.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present analysis demonstrates a rigorous methodology and should be viewed in the context of the numerous previous studies on this topic. The results of the present study are consistent with the existing body of literature and corroborate similar findings from other countries and disciplines.

Contributorsʼ Statement

J.G.: data curation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; L.P.: data analysis; visualization; methodology; validation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; M.-L.W.: data analysis; visualization; writing – original draft; B.T.: writing – review and editing; P.L.J.: data provision; writing – review and editing; H.W.: writing – review and editing; H.L.: writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; M.W.: conceptualization; project administration; supervision; methodology; validation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS), Berlin, Germany for their support.

^* Shared first authorship.

• References

• 1 Marcelin JR, Khazanchi R, Lyden E. et al. “Demographic Representation Among Speakers and Program Committee Members at the IDWeek Conference, 2013–2021“. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2022; 76: 897-904
• 2 Rezaee M, Verde A, Anchang B. et al. “Disparate participation by gender of conference attendants in scientific discussions“. PLoS One 2022; 17: e0262639
• 3 Devi J, Butt AS, Rai L. et al. “Gender disparities in gastroenterology and hepatology conferences: The journey towards equality“. Indian J Gastroenterol 2024;
• 4 Carley S, Carden R, Riley R. et al. „Are there too few women presenting at emergency medicine conferences?“. Emergency Medicine Journal 2016; 33: 681-683
• 5 Destatis. “Studierende insgesamt und Studierende Deutsche im Studienfach Medizin (Allgemein-Medizin) nach Geschlecht“. 2023; 2025.
• 6 Bundesärztekammer. “Ärztestatistik zum 31.12.2023“. 2023; 2025.
• 7 DÄB. “Update 2024. Dokumentation des Anteils von Frauen in Führungspositionen in klinischen Fächern und Dekanaten der deutschen Universitätsmedizin“. Medical Women on Top 2025.
• 8 Sardelis S, Drew JA. “Not ‘Pulling up the Ladder’: Women Who Organize Conference Symposia Provide Greater Opportunities for Women to Speak at Conservation Conferences“. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160015
• 9 Aufenvenne P, Haase C, Meixner F. et al. “Participation and communication behaviour at academic conferences – An empirical gender study at the German Congress of Geography 2019“. Geoforum 2021; 126: 192-204
• 10 Schroeder J, Dugdale HL, Radersma R. et al. “Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia“. J Evol Biol 2013; 26: 2063-2069
• 11 Monson E, Ng K, Sibbick H. et al. “Gender disparity in prestigious speaking roles: A study of 10 years of international conference programming in the field of gambling studies“. PLoS One 2023; 18: e0286803
• 12 Klein RS, Voskuhl R, Segal BM. et al. “Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity“. Nature Immunology 2017; 18: 475-478
• 13 Gerull KM, Kim DJ, Cogsil T. et al. “Are Women Proportionately Represented as Speakers at Orthopaedic Surgery Annual Meetings? A Cross-Sectional Analysis“. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478: 2729-2740
• 14 Di Vincenzo F, Quintero MA, Mendygral P. et al. “Gender Inequity in Pharma-Supported Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presentations: Shining a Light on Opportunities for Equality and Transparency in Medical Research“. Gastroenterology 2024; 167: 1256-1259.e1252
• 15 Jones TM, Fanson KV, Lanfear R. et al. “Gender differences in conference presentations: a consequence of self-selection?“. PeerJ 2014; 2: e627
• 16 Vallence A-M, Hinder MR, Fujiyama H. “A data-driven approach to selecting invited speakers at conferences: a step toward gender parity“. bioRxiv 2019; 426320
• 17 Arora A, Kaur Y, Dossa F. et al. “Proportion of Female Speakers at Academic Medical Conferences Across Multiple Specialties and Regions“. JAMA Network Open 2020; 3: e2018127-e2018127
• 18 De Paola M, Lombardo R, Pupo V. et al. “Do Women Shy Away from Public Speaking? A Field Experiment“. Labour Economics 2021; 70: 102001
• 19 Nittrouer CL, Hebl MR, Ashburn-Nardo L. et al. “Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities“. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115: 104-108
• 20 Lupon A, Rodríguez-Lozano P, Bartrons M. et al. “Towards women-inclusive ecology: Representation, behavior, and perception of women at an international conference“. PLOS ONE 2021; 16: e0260163
• 21 McKinnon M, O’Connell C. “Perceptions of stereotypes applied to women who publicly communicate their STEM work“. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2020; 7: 160
• 22 Fassiotto M, Hamel EO, Ku M. et al. “Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty“. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2016; 25: 292-298
• 23 Newman C, Templeton K, Chin EL. “Inequity and Women Physicians: Time to Change Millennia of Societal Beliefs“. Perm J 2020; 24: 1-6
• 24 Kass D, Choo EK. “When will we have enough women speakers in emergency medicine?“. Emergency Medicine Journal 2016; 33: 680-680
• 25 Silver JK, Bhatnagar S, Blauwet CA. et al. “Female Physicians Are Underrepresented in Recognition Awards from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation“. PM&R 2017; 9: 976-984
• 26 Silver JK, Blauwet CA, Bhatnagar S. et al. “Women Physicians Are Underrepresented in Recognition Awards From the Association of Academic Physiatrists“. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 97: 34-40
• 27 Bateman EA, Cassidy C, Reardon R. et al. “Are Women Physicians Underrecognized for National Awards in Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine? An Observational Study“. Muscle & Nerve 2025; 71: 639-643
• 28 Silverberg S, Ruzycki SM. “Proportion of female recipients of resident-selected awards across Canada from 2000 to 2018: a retrospective observational study“. CMAJ Open 2020; 8: E242-e250

Publication History

Received: 30 June 2025

Accepted after revision: 12 September 2025

Article published online:
07 October 2025