ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Understanding professional disparities in academic anesthesiology: a single-center gender-based survey study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen in academic anesthesiology face numerous structural and cultural barriers that impede academic advancement and threaten career longevity. Understanding the impact of these challenges can allow steps to be taken to improve gender equity and retention in academic anesthesiology.
methodsThis study describes a voluntary, anonymous survey distributed to faculty members in the Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Care at an urban tertiary care academic Health System with a variety of anesthetizing locations across six hospitals. All clinical faculty members in the Department, regardless of gender identity, were invited to participate (n = 209). The 57-question survey, which was administered over a 3-week time period in 2024, examined the relationship between demographic variables and professional factors relating to career progression. Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics to compare responses between both gender and career stage peer groups. Using inductive thematic analysis, the authors analyzed open-ended survey data and developed themes that will be used to develop future improvement initiatives.
resultsThe survey response rate was 35% (73/209). Respondents were well-balanced in terms of gender (52.1% women, 45.2% men, 2.7% other) and other demographic groups. Women respondents more often remained at an assistant professor level after 6-10 years of practice (36.4% vs. 0%), reported fewer first or senior author publications if in practice 5 + years (70% vs. 33.3%), and described non-promotable work responsibilities in early- and mid-career time points (85% vs. 67%). Women less often reported receiving an accelerated promotion (33.3% vs. 44.8%); holding departmental (50% vs. 58.6%), institutional (17.9% vs. 35.7%), or national (34.6% vs. 44.8%) leadership positions; and having participated on an editorial board (26.5% vs. 37.9%). More women, particularly in early- and mid-career stages, reported active intent to leave the institution (21.1% vs. 12.1%). Three clear themes emerged from qualitative survey data: 1) Career Advancement, 2) Work Culture, and 3) Work-life Integration.
conclusionsDifferences are reported in traditional metrics of academic career success between men and women in an academic anesthesiology department. The themes identified provide concrete targets for improvement in improving equity between women and men and retention in academic anesthesiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.