Sex Disparities Among Fellowship Program Directors in Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in the orthopaedic surgery workforce in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the representation of women among fellowship program directors (PDs) in orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of fellowship PDs in orthopaedic surgery during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Academic, training, and demographic characteristics were collected from internet-based resources. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for both men and women. A PPR of <0.8 indicated underrepresentation and a PPR of >1.2 indicated overrepresentation. Bivariate analyses were utilized to assess the correlation between sex diversity and geographic region and between sex diversity and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accreditation status. The relationship between the median annual salary and the sex diversity of each orthopaedic subspecialty was analyzed with use of the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: This study included 600 fellowship PDs, 40 (6.7%) of whom were women. In total, 24.5% of the fellowship PDs were assistant professors (8.8% women versus 91.2% men, p < 0.001); 26.2% were associate professors (9.6% women versus 90.4% men, p < 0.001); 36.8% were full professors (4.5% women versus 95.5% men, p < 0.001); and 12.5% were unranked (2.7% women versus 97.3% men, p < 0.001). The representation of women increased with academic rank, as reflected in their prevalence at the assistant (PPR = 0.67), associate (PPR = 0.77), and full professor (PPR = 0.80) levels. Among the orthopaedic subspecialties, musculoskeletal oncology (19.0%), pediatric orthopaedics (14.6%), and hand surgery (12.6%) had the highest proportions of women fellowship PDs. PPRs were lowest for orthopaedic sports medicine (PPR = 0.35), shoulder and elbow (PPR = 0.45), and adult reconstruction (PPR = 0.52). Women PDs had equitable representation in musculoskeletal oncology (PPR = 1.17), hand surgery (PPR = 1.02), foot and ankle (PPR = 0.84), and orthopaedic trauma (PPR = 0.80). Median subspecialty compensation was negatively correlated with the prevalence of women among fellowship PDs (r = -0.70, p = 0.036). Geographic region was not associated with sex diversity (p = 0.434), but programs with ACGME accreditation had significantly more women fellowship PDs than those without (11.0% versus 3.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women are underrepresented among orthopaedic fellowship PDs, especially in certain subspecialties (orthopaedic sports medicine, shoulder and elbow, and adult reconstruction). More research is needed to understand the barriers that impact the representation of women among leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater sex diversity among fellowship PDs may help to increase the recruitment of women into orthopaedic subspecialties. The equitable consideration of orthopaedic surgeons from all backgrounds for leadership positions can increase workforce diversity, which may improve the vitality of the orthopaedic community.

Quantification of Conflicts of Interest in an Online Point-of-Care Clinical Support Website.

Online medical reference websites are utilized by health care providers to enhance their education and decision making. However, these resources may not adequately reveal pharmaceutical-author interactions and their potential conflicts of interest (CoIs). This investigation: (1) evaluates the correspondence of two well-utilized CoI databases: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP) and ProPublica's Dollars for Docs (PDD) and (2) quantifies CoIs among authors of a publicly available point of care clinical support website which is used to inform evidence-based medicine decisions. Two data sources were used: the hundred most common drugs and the top fifty causes of death. These topics were entered into a freely available database. The authors (N = 139) were then input into CMSOP and PDD and compensation and number of payments were determined for 2013-2015. The subset of highly compensated authors that also reported "Nothing to disclose" were further examined. There was a high degree of similarity between CMSOP and PDD for compensation (R2 ≥ 0.998) and payment number (R2 ≥ 0.992). The amount received was 1.4% higher in CMSOP ($4,059,194) than in PDD ($4,002,891). The articles where the authors had received the greatest compensation were in neurology (Parkinson's Disease = $1,810,032), oncology (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia = $616,727), and endocrinology (Type I Diabetes = $377,388). Two authors reporting "Nothing to disclose" received appreciable and potentially relevant compensation. CMSOP and PDD produced almost identical results. CoIs were common among authors but self-reporting may be an inadequate reporting mechanism. Recommendations are offered for improving the CoI transparency of pharmaceutical-author interactions in point-of-care electronic resources.