Sex-Related Differences in Speaker Introductions at Ophthalmology Grand Rounds.

IF 4.1 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ryan S Huang, Andrew Mihalache, Sumana C Naidu, Jim S Xie, Marko M Popovic, Amandeep S Rai, Peter J Kertes, Rajeev H Muni, Radha P Kohly
{"title":"Sex-Related Differences in Speaker Introductions at Ophthalmology Grand Rounds.","authors":"Ryan S Huang, Andrew Mihalache, Sumana C Naidu, Jim S Xie, Marko M Popovic, Amandeep S Rai, Peter J Kertes, Rajeev H Muni, Radha P Kohly","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.11.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sex bias remains a pervasive reality in academic medicine, often reflected in subtle linguistic choices, which can skew perceptions of competence and perpetuate workplace inequity. This study aims to investigate the relationship between host sex, speaker sex, and speaker introduction practices in ophthalmology grand rounds events.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publicly accessible videos of English-language ophthalmology grand rounds and other teaching events uploaded by academic institutions in the United States and Canada from January 2019 to June 2024 were analyzed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was the proportion of male and female speakers introduced with the formal title \"Dr.\" by the event host. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of male and female speakers introduced with their academic degrees, current academic appointments, awards or achievements, and research interests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for the speaker's degree type(s), academic appointment, and affiliation were performed using Stata v17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,450 videos screened, 399 speaker introductions across 298 ophthalmology teaching sessions were analyzed. The formal title \"Dr.\" was employed by the event host in 75.2% (n = 300/399) of speaker introductions. In multivariable analysis, female speakers were significantly less likely to be introduced by their formal title (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.25-0.78, P < .001), academic degrees (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, P = .03) and their awards or achievements (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35-0.95, P = .04) compared to male speakers. Interaction terms between speaker and host sex were significant for formal title use (P = .03) and academic degrees (P = .04), prompting subgroup analyses by host sex. Findings were consistent when stratified by male hosts, while there was no difference in the likelihood of introducing male or female speakers with their formal titles, academic degrees, or awards/achievements when introduced by female hosts. Female speakers were significantly more likely to present on nonclinical topics compared to male speakers (OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.36-4.79, P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When introduced by male hosts, female speakers were less likely to be addressed using a formal title compared with male speakers, while no significant differences were observed when female hosts introduced speakers of either sex. A standardized approach to introducing speakers may be beneficial in mitigating sex biases during grand rounds and other academic events.</p>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.11.007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Sex bias remains a pervasive reality in academic medicine, often reflected in subtle linguistic choices, which can skew perceptions of competence and perpetuate workplace inequity. This study aims to investigate the relationship between host sex, speaker sex, and speaker introduction practices in ophthalmology grand rounds events.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Methods: Publicly accessible videos of English-language ophthalmology grand rounds and other teaching events uploaded by academic institutions in the United States and Canada from January 2019 to June 2024 were analyzed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was the proportion of male and female speakers introduced with the formal title "Dr." by the event host. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of male and female speakers introduced with their academic degrees, current academic appointments, awards or achievements, and research interests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for the speaker's degree type(s), academic appointment, and affiliation were performed using Stata v17.0.

Results: Of 1,450 videos screened, 399 speaker introductions across 298 ophthalmology teaching sessions were analyzed. The formal title "Dr." was employed by the event host in 75.2% (n = 300/399) of speaker introductions. In multivariable analysis, female speakers were significantly less likely to be introduced by their formal title (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.25-0.78, P < .001), academic degrees (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, P = .03) and their awards or achievements (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35-0.95, P = .04) compared to male speakers. Interaction terms between speaker and host sex were significant for formal title use (P = .03) and academic degrees (P = .04), prompting subgroup analyses by host sex. Findings were consistent when stratified by male hosts, while there was no difference in the likelihood of introducing male or female speakers with their formal titles, academic degrees, or awards/achievements when introduced by female hosts. Female speakers were significantly more likely to present on nonclinical topics compared to male speakers (OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.36-4.79, P < .001).

Conclusions: When introduced by male hosts, female speakers were less likely to be addressed using a formal title compared with male speakers, while no significant differences were observed when female hosts introduced speakers of either sex. A standardized approach to introducing speakers may be beneficial in mitigating sex biases during grand rounds and other academic events.

眼科大查房中发言人介绍的性别差异。
目的:性别偏见仍然是学术医学中普遍存在的现实问题,通常反映在微妙的语言选择上,这会扭曲对能力的认知,并延续工作场所的不公平。本研究旨在调查眼科大查房活动中主持人性别、发言人性别和发言人介绍做法之间的关系:横断面研究 方法:由两名独立审查员对美国和加拿大学术机构在 2019 年 1 月至 2024 年 6 月期间上传的可公开访问的英语眼科大查房和其他教学活动视频进行分析。主要结果是活动主持人以 "博士 "这一正式头衔介绍的男性和女性发言人的比例。次要结果包括介绍男女发言人的学历、当前学术任命、奖项或成就以及研究兴趣的比例。使用 Stata v17.0 对演讲者的学位类型、学术任命和所属关系进行了单变量和多变量逻辑回归调整:在筛选出的 1450 个视频中,对 298 个眼科教学环节中的 399 个演讲者介绍进行了分析。在 75.2%(n=300/399)的演讲者介绍中,活动主持人使用了 "博士 "这一正式头衔。在多变量分析中,女性演讲者在介绍时使用正式头衔的可能性明显较低(OR=0.55,95%CI=0.25-0.78,PConclusions:由男性主持人介绍时,女性发言人使用正式头衔的可能性低于男性发言人,而由女性主持人介绍男女发言人时则无明显差异。在大查房和其他学术活动中,采用标准化方法介绍发言人可能有利于减少性别偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
406
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect. The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports. Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信