Women in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.10.019

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 344-350.e1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.10.019 Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

In 2015, only 1.5% of female Canadian medical students pursued radiology as a specialty, versus 5.6% of men. The aim of this study was to determine what factors attract and deter Canadian medical students from pursuing a career in radiology, and why fewer women than men pursue radiology as a specialty.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was e-mailed to English-speaking Canadian medical schools, and 12 of 14 schools participated. Subgroup analyses for gender and radiology interest were performed using the Fisher exact test (P < .05).

Results

In total, 917 students (514 women; 403 men) responded. Direct patient contact was valued by significantly more women who were not considering specialization in radiology (87%), compared with women who were (70%; P < .0001). Physics deterred more women (47%) than it did men (21%), despite similar educational backgrounds for the two gender groups in physical sciences (P < .0001). More women who were considering radiology as a specialty rated intellectual stimulation as being important to their career choice (93%), compared with women who were not (80%; P = .002). Fewer women who were not interested in radiology had done preclinical observerships in radiology (20%), compared with men who were not interested in radiology (28%; P = .04).

Conclusions

A perceived lack of direct patient contact dissuades medical students from pursuing radiology as a career. Women have less preclinical radiology exposure than do men. Programs that increase preclinical exposure to radiology subspecialties that have greater patient contact should be initiated, and an effort to actively recruit women to such programs should be made.

Introduction

Women constituted more than half (53%) of Canadian medical graduates applying to Canadian residency programs in 2015, yet diagnostic radiology was the first-choice discipline for only 1.5% of women, compared with 5.6% of men [1]. Despite equal success rates among men and women in obtaining radiology residency positions in Canada, this gender difference has remained relatively constant during the past decade 1, 2.

In the 2015 Canadian residency match, 25% of medical students matching into diagnostic radiology were women [1]. In contrast, women constituted 40% of all medical students who matched into a surgical specialty [1]. Similarly, in the United States, radiology ranks 17th of 20 among the largest training specialties for its proportion of women, and it is the lowest ranked of the nonsurgical specialties 3, 4.

Underrepresentation of women in radiology has been the topic of several papers, including a review by Potterton et al [5], which discussed how positive exposure to a specialty during medical school may influence specialty choice [5]. Other studies 6, 7 have found that direct patient contact is a factor influencing specialty choice. Although a survey by Fielding et al [7] found that a lack of direct patient contact was the factor that most strongly dissuaded American clerkship students from pursuing radiology as a specialty [6], no significant gender-specific differences in factors dissuading men and women were elicited [6].

These studies point to a need for further research, as the factors that account for the significantly lower proportion of women who choose radiology, compared with that of men, are still not well understood 5, 6, 7. Historically, in the United States, the relative attractiveness of diagnostic radiology as a specialty has been related to its economic vitality (ie, job market and salary) [8]. Overall, medical students’ knowledge of the interplay between economic factors and radiology has been suggested as a relevant factor in their selection of a specialty, but the role of gender in this context has not been examined.

The reasons underlying gender disparity in radiology training programs remain unknown. Are women who consider radiology attracted to different qualities in a specialty, compared with women who do not? Are men and women deterred from pursuing radiology as a specialty for different reasons? The purpose of this study was to investigate what factors attract Canadian medical students to and deter them from radiology, and to determine if these factors differ between women and men.

Section snippets

Methods

This study was fully approved by the Western University Research Ethics Board. Institutional research ethics board approval for the study was obtained from our home university, as well as from the other schools that subsequently agreed to participate in the study. Factors included in the questionnaire were identified based on the published literature, as well as discussion among study team members. The study was pilot tested, with multiple medical students rotating through our radiology

Results

In total, 917 participated in the survey, for a response rate of approximately 14%. Of these, 514 were women (56%), and 403 were men (44%). Level of training was reported by 896 students: 560 students were in preclerkship (63%); 336 were in clerkship (38%). No significant difference was found in level of training by gender. Students who were potentially interested in considering radiology numbered 291 (32%), whereas 626 students (68%) were definitely not considering radiology as a specialty.

Discussion

Radiology has been perceived as a specialty with an ostensibly controllable lifestyle [9]; yet, it is one of the few with less than 40% female representation [10]. According to the 2014 Canadian National Physician Survey, 28% of radiologists were women [11]. Increasingly, more female radiologists work part time [12]. As demonstrated in our study, job flexibility attracted more women than men to radiology, and this finding is congruent with previous evidence showing that many women choose

Take-Home Points

■
Job flexibility, interest in acquiring a broad range of knowledge, and income are the top factors that attract medical students to radiology.
■
Lack of direct patient contact deters medical students from pursuing a career in radiology.
■
Women are underrepresented to a greater degree in radiology compared to other male-dominated specialties.
■
Direct patient contact is valued by significantly more women who are not considering a radiology career, compared with women who are.
■
Among medical students who

References (27)

J. Collins
Residency training data: What do the numbers tell us?
J Am Coll Radiol
(2004)
V.K. Potterton et al.
Why don’t female medical students choose diagnostic radiology? A review of the current literature
J Am Coll Radiol
(2004)
E.A. Kazerooni et al.
Medical students’ attitudes toward radiology: comparison of matriculating and graduating students
Acad Radiol
(1997)
S.R. Baker et al.
Women as radiologists: Are there barriers to entry and advancement?
J Am Coll Radiol
(2006)
B. Buddeberg-Fischer et al.
Specialising in radiology in Switzerland: still attractive for medical school graduates?
Eur J Radiol
(2012)
K.H. Vydareny et al.
Career advancement of men and women in academic radiology: Is the playing field level?
Acad Radiol
(2000)
I.M. Freundlich et al.
Medical students who choose a radiology elective: career decisions, motivations and intentions
Acad Radiol
(1995)
V. Vidal et al.
Radiology as seen by medical students
J Radiol
(2011)
M.A. Roubidoux et al.
Female medical students’ interest in radiology careers
J Am Coll Radiol
(2009)
E.I. Bluth et al.
Gender and the radiology workforce: results of the 2014 ACR Workforce Survey
J Am Coll Radiol
(2015)

M.G. Knuttinen

Encouraging women into the new diagnostic radiology/interventional radiology pathway

J Am Coll Radiol

(2014)

Canadian Resident Matching Service. R-1 match reports. Available at: http://www.carms.ca/en/data-and-reports/r-1/....

M.O. Baerlocher et al.

Does gender impact upon application rejection rate among Canadian radiology residency applicants?

Can Assoc Radiol J

(2005)

Cited by (71)

Authorship gender among articles about artificial intelligence in breast imaging
2024, European Journal of Radiology
The purpose of this study is to investigate the variance of women authors, specifically first and senior authorship among peer-reviewed artificial intelligence-related articles with a specific focus in breast imaging.
A strategic search was conducted in July 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to capture all existing and publicly available peer-reviewed articles intersecting AI and breast imaging. Primary outcomes were first and senior authors’ gender, which were assigned with the aid of an emailed self-declaration survey. Secondary outcomes included country of article, journal impact factor, and year of publication. Comparisons were made using logistic regression models and analysis of variances.
115 studies were included in the analysis. Women authors represented 35.7% (41/115) and 37.4% (43/115) of first and senior authors, respectively. Logistic regression modelling showed a significant increase in women senior authors over time but no changes in women first authors. Impact factor was not associated with female authorship and certain countries had women authorship reach over 50%.
This study demonstrates that there is a significant authorship gender gap in artificial intelligence breast imaging research. An increasing temporal trend of senior authors in breast imaging AI-related research is a promising prognosis for more women voices in this field. Further study needs to be done to understand the reasons behind this gap and any potential implications.
A trend, analysis, and solution on women's representation in diagnostic radiology in North America: a narrative review
2024, Clinical Imaging
Despite the demonstrated benefits of gender diversity in medicine, women in Radiology in North America are still underrepresented. We reviewed the literature to highlight the current status of women in Radiology in North America, identify the underlying causes of the gender gap, and provide potential strategies to close this gap. We conducted a narrative literature review using the terms (“Gender Disparity” OR “Gender Inequality”) AND (“Radiology Department” OR “Radiology Residency”), searching data from April 2000 to April 2022 in Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. Our results indicate that Radiology in North America lacks gender diversity in its subspecialties, academic leadership, and research productivity, which the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated. Challenges stemming from a dearth of women role models, limited preclinical contact, and a high rate of burnout contribute to the current gender inequality. Several complementary and supplementary steps can enhance gender diversity in Radiology. These include increasing education and exposure to Radiology at earlier stages and optimizing mentorship opportunities to attract a more diverse pool of talent to the discipline. In addition, supporting resident parents and enhancing the residency program's culture can decrease the rate of burnout and encourage women to pursue careers and leadership positions in Radiology.
Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients
2024, Clinical Imaging
Women remain underrepresented in radiology and there is a paucity of literature examining the recognition of their professional contributions to the discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of award winners across all North American radiology societies.
The gender distribution of 1923 award recipients from 21 North American radiology societies between 1960 and 2021 was examined. Awards were divided into four categories: leadership, teaching, contribution to radiology, and promising new/young societal member. Primary outcome was the total proportion of awards received by gender. All data was compared to the gender distribution of working radiologists in North America.
A total of 1923 award recipients were identified between 1960 and 2021. Seventy-nine percent of award recipients were men (n = 1527) and 21 % were women (n = 396). As of 1970, the proportion of women award recipients increased 0.55 % ± 0.07 % each year. The proportion of women receiving radiological awards after 2018 is equal to or surpassing the percentage of women radiologists. Women received 36.4 % of leadership, 33.6 % of promising new member, 30.1 % of teaching, and 14.4 % of lifetime contribution awards.
In the last five years, the proportion of women receiving awards was equal to or greater than the proportion of women radiologists. Women received more leadership awards and fewer lifetime contributor awards compared to men.
Leveraging Social Networks for Academic Career Support for Women in Radiology: A Case Study
2024, Journal of the American College of Radiology
Assessment of Student Perceptions of Aspects of a Career in Radiation Oncology
2024, Journal of the American College of Radiology
To determine medical students’ views of various aspects of a career in radiation oncology (RO) to identify areas that may benefit from reform and to guide initiatives to stimulate broader and more diverse student interest in the specialty.
An electronic survey was sent to student oncology interest group members at seven US medical schools. The survey asked students to rate 19 aspects of RO on a 5-point bipolar Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics are reported, along with subgroup analyses based on participants’ demographics.
The response rate was 51.1% (n = 275 of 538). The most favorably rated aspects of RO were outpatient working hours (mean ± SD Likert-type rating of 4.51 ± 0.82), routinely working with other physicians (4.45 ± 0.76), and use of advanced technology to treat patients. The most unfavorably rated aspects of RO were less geographic flexibility for residency or employment (1.98 ± 1.04), spending a lot of time on a computer doing treatment planning (2.80 ± 1.21), and having a job that is not well understood by most doctors and the general public (2.89 ± 1.02). Gender was associated with significant differences in 8 of 19 questions in how each aspect of RO was viewed. Few differences were observed based on race or ethnicity, though Asian participants had a significantly more favorable view of RO being a more science-oriented specialty compared with White or underrepresented students, respectively (3.50 versus 3.21 versus 2.84, P = .01).
These findings inform the RO community in the development of more effective initiatives to encourage students to fully explore the specialty.
USMLE Step 2 CK Scores and Radiology Residency Applications: Does it Affect Diversity in Selection of Trainees?
2023, Academic Radiology
As residency programs in diagnostic radiology aspire to broaden trainee diversity, reliance on certain criteria may affect the selection of candidates from underrepresented groups. With the conversion of reporting of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores to pass/fail, programs may rely more on numerical USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores. The purpose of our investigation is to assess the effects of Step 2 CK scores on the selection of underrepresented minority (URM) and female candidates.
Applications from United States senior allopathic medical students to a radiology residency program from the 2021–2023 National Residency Matching Program cycles were analyzed. Subjects were classified as male or female and URM or non-URM by self-identification. Step 2 CK scores were compared and the use of cutoff scores was examined for disparate effects.
1017 subjects fulfilled the entry criteria. There were 721 males and 296 females, with 164 URM and 853 non-URM candidates. Comparing males to females, there was no significant difference in the mean score (p = 0.21) and no disparate effects of cutoff scores. There was a significant difference between the mean score of URM versus non-URM candidates of eight points (p < 0.00011). The use of cutoffs showed a disparate effect on URM candidates with a cutoff score of 250 (average score for 2022 matched applicants) excluding 71% of URM candidates while excluding only 46% of non-URM candidates.
Reliance on USMLE Step 2 CK scores to screen applications for radiology residency can disadvantage URM candidates. Females are not adversely affected.

View all citing articles on Scopus

: The authors have no conflicts of interest related to the material discussed in this article. The authors have no financial, nor industry-related disclosures that are relevant to this article.

View full text

Original articleLeadershipWomen in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Section snippets

Methods

Results

Discussion

Take-Home Points

J Am Coll Radiol

J Am Coll Radiol

Acad Radiol

J Am Coll Radiol

Eur J Radiol

Acad Radiol

Acad Radiol

J Radiol

J Am Coll Radiol

J Am Coll Radiol

J Am Coll Radiol

Does gender impact upon application rejection rate among Canadian radiology residency applicants?

Can Assoc Radiol J

Original article
Leadership
Women in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity