Blinded intraoperative skill evaluations avoid gender-based bias.

INTRODUCTION: Gender bias has been identified consistently in written performance evaluations. Qualitative tools may provide a standardized way to evaluate surgical skill and minimize gender bias. We hypothesized that there is no difference in operative time or GEARS scores in robotic hysterectomy for men vs women surgeons. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic hysterectomies performed between June 2019 and March 2020 at 8 hospitals within the same hospital system were captured into a prospective database. GEARS scores were assigned by crowd-sourced evaluators by a third party blinded to any surgeon- or patient-identifying information. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean operative time and GEARS scores for each group, and significant variables were included in a one-way ANCOVA to control for confounders. Two-tailed p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Seventeen women and 13 men performed a total of 188 hysterectomies; women performed 34 (18%) and men performed 153 (81%). Women surgeons had a higher mean operative time (133 ± 58 vs 86.3 ± 46 min, p = 0.024); after adjustment, there were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.607). There was no significant difference between the genders in total GEARS score (20.0 ± 0.77 vs 20.2 ± 0.70, p = 0.415) or GEARS subcomponent scores: bimanual dexterity (3.98 ± 0.03 vs 4.00 ± 0.03, p = 0.705); depth perception (4.04 ± 0.04 vs 4.05 ± 0.02, p = 0.799); efficiency (3.79 ± 0.02 vs 3.82 ± 0.02, p = 0.437); force sensitivity (4.01 ± 0.04 vs 4.05 ± 0.05, p = 0.533); or robotic control (4.16 ± 0.03 vs 4.26 ± 0.01, p = 0.079). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in GEARS score between men vs women surgeons performing robotic hysterectomies. Video-based blinded assessment of skills may minimize gender biases when evaluating surgical skill for competency evaluation and credentialing.

Gender Bias: Another Rising Curve to Flatten?

The COVID-19 pandemic and the upheaval it is causing may be leading to novel manifestations of the well-established mechanisms by which women have been marginalized in professional roles, robbing the field of the increased collective intelligence that exists when diverse perspectives are embraced. Unconscious bias, gendered expectations, and overt hostility minimize the contributions of women in academic medicine to the detriment of all. The current environment of heightened stress and new socially distant forms of communication may be exacerbating these well-recognized obstacles to women contributing to the field. Of note, none of these actions requires ill intent; all they require is the activation of unconscious biases and almost instinctive preferences and behaviors that favor the comfortable and familiar leadership of men in a time of extreme stress. The authors argue that it is time to investigate the frequency of behaviors that limit both the recognition and the very exercise of women's leadership during this pandemic, which is unprecedented but nevertheless may recur in the future. Leaders in health care must pay attention to equity, diversity, and inclusion given increases in undermining and harassing behaviors toward women during this crisis. The longer-term consequences of marginalizing women may hamper efforts to combat the next pandemic, so the time to flatten the rising gender bias curve in academic medicine is now.

COVID-19 Threatens Progress Toward Gender Equity Within Academic Medicine.

Women remain underrepresented within academic medicine despite past and present efforts to promote gender equity. The authors discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic could stymie progress toward gender parity within the biomedical workforce and limit the retention and advancement of women in science and medicine. Women faculty face distinct challenges as they navigate the impact of shelter-in-place and social distancing on work and home life. An unequal division of household labor and family care between men and women means women faculty are vulnerable to inequities that may develop in the workplace as they strive to maintain academic productivity and professional development without adequate assistance with domestic tasks and family care. Emerging data suggest that gender differences in academic productivity may be forthcoming as a direct result of the pandemic. Existing gender inequities in professional visibility, networking, and collaboration may be exacerbated as activities transition from in-person to virtual environments and create new barriers to advancement. Meanwhile, initiatives designed to promote gender equity within academic medicine may lose key funding due to the economic impact of COVID-19 on higher education. To ensure that the gender gap within academic medicine does not widen, the authors call upon academic leaders and the broader biomedical community to support women faculty through deliberate actions that promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors provide several recommendations, including faculty needs assessments; review of gender bias within tenure-clock-extension offers; more opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship, and professional recognition; and financial commitments to support equity initiatives. Leadership for these efforts should be at the institutional and departmental levels, and leaders should ensure a gender balance on task forces and committees to avoid overburdening women faculty with additional service work. Together, these strategies will contribute to the development of a more equitable workforce capable of transformative medical discovery and care.

School Psychology reflections on COVID-19, antiracism, and gender and racial disparities in publishing.

School Psychology is an outlet for research on children, youth, educators, and families that has scientific, practice, and policy implications. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly disrupted K-12 schooling as well as university training, impacting educational attainment and highlighting longstanding inequality. Furthermore, the killing of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd has precipitated worldwide protests against antiblack racism, white supremacy, and police brutality. In this editorial, we highlight the potential impacts to our field, including prioritizing research related to educational equity, identifying new research questions related to technology, and utilizing new research methods. We also consider the impact of gender and racial disparities in publications during this time. Finally, given these events, we discuss how best our editorial team can serve the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).