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 1st and February 1st, 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
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.
