Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31469392›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Defining Barriers and Facilitators to Advancement for Women in Academic Surgery.

Julie A Thompson-Burdine, Dana A Telem, Jennifer F Waljee, Erika A Newman, Dawn M Coleman, Hadley I Stoll, Gurjit Sandhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Progress and Gaps: Two Decades of Female Authorship in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Analysis of Career Outcomes and Practice Patterns After Microsurgery Fellowship.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Gap of women leadership in global obesity research.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Investigation of gender-based needs in academic otolaryngology.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julie A Thompson-BurdineDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Dana A TelemDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Jennifer F WaljeeDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Erika A NewmanDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Dawn M ColemanDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Hadley I StollDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Gurjit SandhuDepartment of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Sex equity is elusive in academic surgery departments across the United States. Persistent inequities remain a considerable problem and inhibit professional advancement for female surgeons. Identifying the factors that promulgate sex discrepancies may provide a framework for institutional growth and personal progress for women. Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators to success at the individual and organizational level to develop evidence-based interventions designed to close the sex gap in surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included 26 female participants who were current and former surgical faculty employed by Michigan Medicine, the health system of the University of Michigan, between 2000 and 2017. Semistructured personal interviews were conducted from June 28 to September 29, 2017, via telephone. Each interview lasted 45 minutes to 1 hour. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed for analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The interview included 7 questions referring to the surgeon's experience with the Michigan Medicine Department of Surgery and 7 questions referring to nonspecific areas of interest. Results: The 26 participants in this study ranged in age from 32 to 64 years, with faculty experience ranging from 3 to 22 years. Thematic analysis was used to locate, analyze, and report patterns within the data related to barriers and facilitators for women in academic medicine. Three major themes were identified by researchers. Participants reported that (1) organizational culture and institutional policies affect opportunities for advancement; (2) relational interactions with leadership, mentors, colleagues, and staff affect promotion and attrition; and (3) individual characteristics mediate the perception of professional and personal success. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of 26 female academic surgeons, a complex matrix of organizational and individual factors were found to contribute to sex inequities in academic surgery. This research may provide insight into the sex biases that inhibit advancement, may inform strategies that facilitate progress, and may inspire interventions that could help eliminate institutional and individual barriers to the academic success of women.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersAdultCareer MobilityEducation, MedicalFemaleGender IdentityGeneral SurgeryHumansInterviews as TopicLeadershipMichiganMiddle AgedOrganizational CultureOrganizational PolicyPhysicians, WomenQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID31469392
PMCPMC6724152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.