Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35463315›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Gynecologic Oncology and Inclusion of Women Into the Surgical Workforce: The Canary in This Coal Mine.

Linda J Hong, Lisa Rubinsak, Michelle F Benoit, Deanna Teoh, Uma Chandavarkar, Amy Brockmeyer, Erin Stevens, Yevgeniya Ioffe, Sarah M Temkin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of Workplace Microaggressions on Surgeon Career Status and Trajectory: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Linda J HongDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA, United States.
Lisa RubinsakDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States.
Michelle F BenoitDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Deanna TeohDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Uma ChandavarkarDepartment of Oncology, Sutter Medical Group, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Amy BrockmeyerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology and Gynecology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Erin StevensDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prevea Health, Green Bay, WI, United States.
Yevgeniya IoffeDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA, United States.
Sarah M TemkinIndependent Researcher, Washington, DC, United States.
Loma Linda University · USIndependent Sector · USKaiser Permanente · USPrevea Health · USSutter Medical Center · USThe Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Minnesota · USVirginia Mason Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Women make up a majority of the gynecologic oncology workforce. Increasing the numbers of women in leadership has been proposed as a path towards professional gender equity. This study examined whether leadership gender and departmental infrastructure impact the work environment for women gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Members of a 472-member private Facebook group "Women of Gynecologic Oncology" (WGO) who self-identified as women gynecologic oncologists provided demographics, practice infrastructure, personal experience with workplace bullying, gender discrimination, microaggressions using a REDcap survey platform. Results: Of 250 (53%) respondents to this survey, most were younger than age 50 years (93.6%); White (82.2%) and non-Hispanic (94.3%); married (84.7%); and parenting (75.2%). Practice environments included academic (n=152, 61.0%), hospital employed (n=57, 22.9%), and private practice (n=31, 12.4%), and 89.9% supervised trainees. A significant percent of respondents had experienced bullying (52.8%), gender discrimination (57%) and microaggressions (83%). Age, race, ethnicity, practice setting, or mentorship were not statistically significantly associated with these experiences. Reported perpetrators were varied and included colleagues (84%), patients (44%), staff (41%), administrators (18%), and trainees (16%). Prevalence of bullying (55.0 vs 47.7%, p=0.33), gender discrimination (59.1 vs 52.3%, p=0.33) and microaggressions (83.3 vs 83.0%, p=1.00) were similar irrespective of departmental leadership gender. Conclusions: Women gynecologic oncologists report a high prevalence of workplace bullying, gender discrimination and microaggressions regardless of the gender of their immediate leadership. Proactive and deliberate structural interventions to improve the work environment for surgeons who are women are urgently needed.

Indexed as

bullyinggender discriminationgynecologic oncologistsinclusionmicroaggressionswomen in medicine (WIM)women in surgery

Identifiers

PMID35463315
PMCPMC9020218
OpenAlexW4226028806

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.