Speaker Gender Representation at the North American Neuromodulation Society Annual Meeting (2017-2021): Have We Made Progress in Closing the Gender Gap?

Background: Speaker gender representation at medical conferences is a significant site of gender disparity. Our primary objective was to quantify the proportion of female speakers and compare plenary session opportunities by gender at the North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) Annual Conference. Methods: Data from the 2017-2021 NANS Annual Conference presentations were abstracted. Primary outcomes included gender composition of speaker slots, gender composition of individual speakers, and comparison of plenary speaker slots by gender. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of session size, age, professional degree, and number of presentations per speaker based on gender. Results: Gender composition of annual speaker slots was (% slots presented by women): 2017:14.6%; 2018:20.5%; 2019:23.5%; 2020:21.0%; 2021:41.4%. Annual gender composition of individual speakers was (% women): 2017:18.7%; 2018:20.6%; 2019:24.6%; 2020:24.9%; 2021:33.8%. Of all speaker slots, the percentage of plenary slots did not differ based on gender, with 11.4% presented by female speakers versus 11.2% presented by male speakers (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, P=0.893). Compared to male speaker slots, there was an association of lower age (43.9±5.6 vs 50.8±8.9, P<0.001), lower odds of holding a single doctorate degree (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5, P<0.001), and lower odds of holding a dual MD/PhD or DO/PhD degree (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.5, P<0.001) in female speaker slots. Compared to male speakers, there was an association of higher number of presentations per female speaker at the 2021 NANS Annual Meeting (2.48±1.60 vs 1.79±1.30, P=0.008). Conclusion: Although the volume of female speaker slots and individual speakers trailed behind their male counterparts, female speaker representation steadily increased at each subsequent annual NANS meeting. We identified no difference in plenary session slots based on gender.

Emergence From the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Care of Chronic Pain: Guidance for the Interventionalist.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals' workflow.