Sticky Floor, Broken Ladder, and Glass Ceiling in Internal Medicine Academic Ranking, Leadership, and Research Productivity

Background

Despite more women entering medicine, substantial gender disparities remain in various medical disciplines. This study explores the extent of these disparities in Canadian academic internal medicine, particularly in academic ranks, leadership positions, and research productivity.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Subjects

Faculty physicians within internal medicine and subspecialties.

Main Measures

Data on faculty physicians with Medical Doctorate (MD), Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), or Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degrees were compiled from 17 internal medicine programs listed in the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). Research metrics were obtained using Elsevier’s Scopus, and analyses were performed with Stata v14.2.

Key Results

Among 5099 physician faculty members in internal medicine, 34% were women, and 66% were men. Among the faculty members holding leadership positions, 68% were men, and 32% were women. There was a significant difference in h-index between men and women physician faculty members (p ≤ 0.001), with men having a higher research output. Across all academic ranks, men faculty had higher median h-index values: Assistant Professor (12 vs. 9), Associate Professor (20 vs. 16), and Professor (40 vs. 30). Women were underrepresented in the procedural specialties, while only a few internal medicine subspecialties, such as palliative medicine and geriatrics, had a women predominance.

Conclusions

Our study underscores existing gender disparity within academic internal medicine in Canada, aligning with global trends. Women remain disproportionately underrepresented in academic ranks, leadership positions, and research productivity. Addressing these disparities necessitates a systemic and multifaceted approach, encompassing policy reforms, mentorship, and fostering an inclusive work environment.