Salary Equity in Academic Radiology Relative to Other Clinical Specialties.

BACKGROUND: Equity in faculty compensation in U.S. academic radiology physicians relative to other specialties is not well known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess salary equity in U.S. academic radiology physicians at different ranks relative to other clinical specialties. METHODS: The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Salary Survey was used to collect information for full-time faculty at U.S. medical schools. Financial compensation data were collected for 2023 for faculty with MD or equivalent degree in medical specialties, stratified by gender and rank. RESULTS: The AAMC Faculty Salary Survey data for 2023 included responses for 97,224 faculty members in clinical specialties, with 5847 faculty members in Radiology departments. In radiology, compared to men (n = 3839), the women faculty members (n = 1763) had a lower median faculty compensation by 6% at the rank of Assistant Professor, 3% for Associate Professors, 4% for Professors and 6% for Section Chief positions. Surgery had the highest difference in median compensation with 21%, 24%, 22% and 19% lower faculty compensation, respectively, for women faculty members at corresponding ranks. Pathology had the lowest percent difference (<1%) in median compensation for all professor ranks. Salary inequity in radiology was lower compared to most other specialties. From assistant to full professors, all other clinical specialties except Pathology and Psychiatry, had a greater salary inequity than Radiology. CONCLUSION: The salary inequity in academic radiology faculty is lower than most other specialties. Further efforts should be made to reduce salary inequities as broader efforts to provide a more diverse, equitable and inclusive environment. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Salary inequity in academic radiology faculty is lower than most other specialties.

US Postgraduate Trainee Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Representation and Faculty Compensation By Specialty.

This study compares postgraduate trainee racial, ethnic, and gender representation and faculty compensation for 21 clinical specialties using 2015-2022 data.

Education Value Units in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: On the basis of the tripartite mission of patient care, research, and education, a need has arisen to better support faculty in non-revenue-generating activities, such as education. As a result, some programs have developed education value unit (EVU) systems to incentivize these activities. The purpose of this scoping review is to analyze the existing literature on EVUs to identify current structures and future directions for research. METHOD: The authors conducted a literature search of 5 databases without restrictions, searching for any articles on EVU systems published from database inception to January 12, 2022. Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion. Two authors independently extracted data and all authors performed quantitative and qualitative synthesis, consistent with best practice recommendations for scoping reviews. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were included. The most common rationale was to incentivize activities prioritized by the department or institution. Of those reporting funding, departmental revenue was most common. The majority of EVU systems were created using a dedicated committee, although composition of the committees varied. Stakeholder engagement was a key component for EVU system development. Most EVU systems also included noneducational activities, such as clinical activities, scholarship activities, administrative or leadership activities, and citizenship. Incentive models varied widely but typically involved numeric- or time-based quantification. EVUs were generally seen as positive, having increased equity and transparency as well as a positive impact on departmental metrics. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarizes the existing literature on EVU systems, providing valuable insights for application to practice and areas for future research.

COVID-19 threatens faculty diversity: postdoctoral scholars call for action.

Despite substantial investment and effort by federal agencies and institutions to improve the diversity of the professoriate, progress is excruciatingly slow. One program that aims to enhance faculty diversity is the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA) funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences. IRACDA supports the training of a diverse cohort of postdoctoral scholars who will seek academic research and teaching careers. The San Diego IRACDA program has trained 109 postdoctoral scholars since its inception in 2003; 59% are women and 63% are underrepresented (UR) Black/African-American, Latinx/Mexican-American, and Indigenous scientists. Sixty-four percent obtained tenure-track faculty positions, including a substantial 32% at research-intensive institutions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis threatens to upend IRACDA efforts to improve faculty diversity, and academia is at risk of losing a generation of diverse, talented scholars. Here, a group of San Diego IRACDA postdoctoral scholars reflects on these issues and discusses recommendations to enhance the retention of UR scientists to avoid a "lost generation" of promising UR faculty scholars.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.

Surgical Residents' Perceptions of the Impact of Productivity-Based Faculty Compensation at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Academic medical centers have increasingly adopted productivity-based compensation models for faculty. The potential exists for conflict between financial incentives and the quality of surgical resident education. This study aims to examine surgical residents' perceptions regarding the impact of productivity-based compensation on education. METHODS: Following implementation of a productivity-based compensation plan, a survey of surgical residents (general surgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery) was conducted to examine perceptions of its impact on didactics, patient care, surgical technique, teaching in the operating room, and financial considerations. Survey data were prospectively collected and analyzed. A retrospective analysis of relative value units (RVUs) was also performed. RESULTS: Following implementation of the productivity-based compensation plan, annual work RVUs increased by 8.9% in surgery as a whole, with increases observed within all surgical subspecialties. A total of 100 surveys were sent and 35 were completed (35% response rate and at least 30% within each surgical subspecialty). Forty-nine percent of participants perceived an increased focus on clinical productivity by faculty. Thirty-seven percent reported learning more about RVUs and Current Procedural Terminology coding. Most residents reported that the compensation plan did not have an impact on their education with respect to didactics (77%), patient care (94%), surgical technique (97%), and teaching in the operating room (83%). CONCLUSIONS: Increased clinical productivity in the setting of an RVU-based compensation plan was not perceived by most surgical residents to have impacted their education. In some cases, this model may enhance education in relation to RVUs, Current Procedural Terminology coding, and the financial aspects of surgery.

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n = 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p = 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p = 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p = 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p = 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

Salary Disparities in Academic Urogynecology: Despite Increased Transparency, Men Still Earn More Than Women.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the compensation differences between male and female academic urogynecologists at public institutions. METHODS: Urogynecologists at public universities with publicly available salary data as of June 2019 were eligible for the study. We collected characteristics, including sex, additional advanced degrees, years of training, board certification, leadership roles, number of authored scientific publications, and total National Institutes of Health funding projects and number of registered clinical trials for which the physician was a principal or co-investigator. We also collected total number of Medicare beneficiaries treated and total Medicare reimbursement as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used linear regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 85 academic urogynecologists at 29 public state academic institutions with available salary data eligible for inclusion in the study. Males were more likely to be an associate or a full professor (81%) compared with females (55%) and were more likely to serve as department chair, vice chair, or division director (59%) compared with females (30%). The mean annual salary was significantly higher among males ($323,227 ± $97,338) than females ($268,990 ± $72,311, P = 0.004). After adjusting for academic rank and leadership roles and years since residency, the discrepancy persisted, with females compensated on average $37,955 less annually. CONCLUSIONS: Salaries are higher for male urogynecologists than female urogynecologists, even when accounting for variables such as academic rank and leadership roles. Physician compensation is complex; the differences observed may be due to variables that are not captured in this study. Nevertheless, the magnitude of disparity found in our study warrants further critical assessment of potential biases within the field.

Visiting Professorship in Academic Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Visiting professorship is an enjoyable activity that is also influential in academic promotional processes as evidence of the invitee's national reputation. Little is known, however, about the factors considered when selecting visiting professors (VPs) or whether this practice reflects objective criteria. We sought to characterize the process and diversity of participants in visiting professorships within academic radiation oncology (RO) to determine whether opportunities are equitably distributed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were distributed to program directors (PDs) of every 2018 RO residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. PDs were asked to identify all VPs over the past 2 years and to describe their departments' decision-making processes. Publicly available demographic and academic characteristics were obtained for each VP, and results were compared by VP gender and hosting program (HP) 2019 Doximity rank using the χ2 test for categorical data and t test for continuous data. RESULTS: The PD response rate was 60 of 93 (65%); 6 surveys were ≥50% incomplete and were excluded. Over a 2-year timeframe, 51 of 54 departments hosted 233 VPs, of whom 29% were women. The mean number of hosted VPs (5; range, 1-19) and gender distribution (35% women; range, 0-100%) did not significantly differ by HP rank (P = .17 and 0.65, respectively), nor did the selection criteria by which VPs were primarily chosen (subject matter expertise, teaching reputation, and resident interest). Women received significantly lower honoraria amounts than men (P = .035) despite no significant differences by gender in academic rank (P = .71), VP department rank (0.19), or M-index (0.83). CONCLUSION: Although sample size is limited, this study suggests that academic RO programs have a relatively equitable approach to selecting VPs that emphasizes trainee education and reflects the gender diversity of RO faculty more generally. Care should be taken to ensure that these similarly qualified women are offered the same monetary amount of honoraria as their male colleagues.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Patterns of Industry Payments to Urologists From 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of financial transaction between industry and urologists in the first 5 years of reporting in the Open Payments Program (OPP) by comparing transactions over time, between academic and nonacademic urologists, and by provider characteristics among academic urologists. METHODS: The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services OPP database was queried for General Payments to urologists from 2014-2018. Faculty at ACGME-accredited urology training programs were identified and characterized via publicly available websites. Industry transfers were analyzed by year, practice setting (academic vs nonacademic), provider characteristics, and AUA section. Payment nature and individual corporate contributions were also summarized. RESULTS: A total of 12,521 urologists - representing 75% of the urology workforce in any given year - received $168 million from industry over the study period. There was no significant trend in payments by year (P = .162). Urologists received a median of $1602 over the study period, though 14% received >$10,000. Payment varied significantly by practice setting (P <.001), with nonacademic urologists receiving more but smaller payments than academic urologists. Among academic urologists, gender (P <.001), department chair status (P <.001), fellowship training (P <.001), and subspecialty (P <.001) were significantly associated with amount of payment from industry. Annual payments from industry varied significantly by AUA section. CONCLUSION: Reporting of physician-industry transactions has not led to a sustained decline in transactions with urologists. Significant differences in industry interaction exist between academic and nonacademic urologists, and values transferred to academic urologists varied by gender, chair status, subspecialty, and AUA section.

Men Receive Three Times More Industry Payments than Women Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Even After Controlling for Confounding Variables.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, orthopaedic surgeons received nearly USD 300 million from industry, with the top 10% of recipients making more than 95% of the total amount. The degree to which gender may be associated with industry compensation has not been well explored; however, this may be confounded by a number of variables, including academic productivity, experience, and other factors. We wished to explore the variability in payment distribution by gender after controlling for these factors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do men or women academic orthopaedic surgeons receive more payments from industry? (2) To what degree do any observed differences between the genders persist, even after accounting for identifiable factors, including academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, subspecialty selection as identified by fellowships completed, and years since completion of residency? METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of surgeons practicing in orthopaedic surgery academic departments in the United States. Academic orthopaedic surgery departments were identified using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Publicly available data on gender, academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, fellowships completed, and years since residency graduation were collected from institutional websites. Industry funding data for 2016 were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, and scholarly productivity data through 2017 were collected from Scopus. A total of 2939 academic orthopaedic surgeons, 2620 (89%) men and 319 (11%) women from 126 programs were identified. Men and women surgeons were different in most of the variables collected, and all except region of university were associated with differences in industry payments. RESULTS: The median payment for men surgeons was greater than that for women (USD 1027 [interquartile range USD 125-USD 9616] versus USD 177 [IQR USD 47-USD 1486]; difference of medians, USD 850; p < 0.001]. After accounting for potentially confounding variables like faculty rank, years since residency, H-index and subspecialty choice, women faculty members still received only 29% of payments received by otherwise comparable men orthopaedists (beta coefficient for gender = 0.29 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.44; p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Women academic orthopaedic surgeons received only 29% of the industry payments received by men, even after controlling for faculty rank, years since residency, H-index, and subspecialty selection. This gender-related disparity may hinder the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increased transparency by companies can help guide orthopaedic surgeons who wish to receive industry funding.

Mentorship of US Medical Students: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring of medical students remains a core pillar of medical education, yet the changing landscape of medicine has called for new and innovative mentoring models to guide students in professional development, career placement, and overall student well-being. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for US medical students. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines. We included original, English-language studies of any research design including descriptive studies that described a mentorship program at a US medical school designed for medical students. RESULTS: Our search yielded 3743 unique citations. Thirty articles met our inclusion criteria. There was significant diversity of the identified programs with regard to program objectives and size. The traditional dyad model of mentorship was the most frequently cited model, with a combination of models (dyad and group mentorship) cited as the second most common. Outcome measures of the programs were largely survey based, with satisfaction being the most measured outcome. Overall, satisfaction was highly rated throughout all the measured mentoring programs. Seven programs provided objective outcomes measures, including improved residency match data and increased scholarly productivity. The programs with objective outcomes measures were smaller, and 6/7 of them focused on a specific clinical area. Five of these programs relied on the traditional dyad model of mentorship. Cost and faculty time were the most frequently cited barriers to these programs. DISCUSSION: Our review demonstrates that mentoring programs for medical students can positively improve medical school satisfaction and career development. These results underscore the need for continued innovative mentoring programs to foster optimal student development in the setting of the increasingly competitive residency match process, growing expectations about student research productivity, and the national focus for overall student wellness.

Analysis of Open Payments Receipts Among Surgical Faculty at a Large Academic Institution.

BACKGROUND: Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "The Sunshine Act," is legislation designed to provide transparency to the relationship between physicians and industry. Since 2013, medical product and pharmaceutical manufacturers were required to report any payments made to physicians to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We predicted that most clinical faculty at our institution would be found on the Open Payments website. We elected to investigate payments in relationship to divisions within the department of surgery and the level of professorship. METHODS: All clinical faculty (n = 86) within the department of surgery at our institution were searched within the database: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/. The total amount of payments, number of payments, and the nature of payments (food and beverage, travel and lodging, consulting, education, speaking, entertainment, gifts and honoraria) were recorded for 2017. Comparison by unpaired t-test (or ANOVA) where applicable, significance defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 86 faculty studied, 75% were found within the CMS Open Payments database in 2017. The mean amount of payment was $4024 (range $13-152,215). Median amount of payment was $434.90 (range $12.75-152,214.70). Faculty receiving outside compensation varied significantly by division and academic rank (P < 0.05). Plastic surgery had the highest percentage of people receiving any form of payment ($143-$1912) and GI surgery had the largest payments associated with device management ($0-$152,215). The variation seen by rank was driven by a small number of faculty with receipt of large payments at the associate professor level. The median amount of payment was $428.53 (range $13.97-2306.05) for assistant professors, $5328.03 (range $28.30-152,214.70) for Associate Professors, and $753.82 (range $12.75-17,708.65) for full professors. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of open payments to CMS provides transparency between physicians and industry. The significant relationship of division and rank with open payments database is driven by relatively few faculty. The majority (94%) received either no payments or less than $10,000.