Original Article
Prevalence of Women in Medicine Programs at University-Based Internal Medicine Residency Programs
Abstract
Objective: Women physicians face various forms of inequities during their training process that inhibit them from reaching their full potential. As a response, several academic institutions have established women in medicine (WIM) programs as a support system. Our objective was to investigate the prevalence of WIM programs at university-based Internal Medicine residency programs as of December 2021.Methods: Using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, we identified 145 university-based Internal Medicine residency programs. Four independent reviewers reviewed the programs’ Web sites, looking for evidence of a WIM program using a standardized checklist of search terms to evaluate and categorize their programs. Categories included whether the program was specific to graduate medical trainees, departments of medicine, or institution-wide. The proportions of programs that had a WIM program, a trainee-specific WIM program, and a Department of Medicine–specific WIM program were then analyzed.
Results: Of the 145 programs searched, 58 (40%) had a WIM program. Only 16 (11%) were specific to trainees (11 for only medicine trainees and 5 included trainees graduate medical education-wide). The remaining 42 programs targeted faculty and trainees (5 included only the Department of Medicine and 37 included departments university-wide).
Conclusions: Few university-affiliated Internal Medicine residency programs have a WIM program specific to trainees. Given the gender inequity and evidence that supports early development of leadership skills and support networks, our findings highlight a possible gap in the residency training program infrastructure.
This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.
References
1. Bennett CL, Baker O, Rangel EL, et al. The gender gap in surgical residencies. JAMA Surg 2020;155:893–894.
2. Nehemiah A, Roberts SE, Song Y, et al. Looking beyond the numbers: increasing diversity and inclusion through holistic review in general surgery recruitment. J Surg Educ 2021;78:763–769.
3. Lin F, Oh SK, Gordon LK, et al. Gender-based differences in letters of recommendation written for ophthalmology residency applicants. BMC Med Educ 2019;19:476.
4. Filippou P, Mahajan S, Deal A, et al. The presence of gender bias in letters of recommendations written for urology residency applicants. Urology 2019; 134:56–61.
5. Osborn VW, Doke K, Griffith KA, et al. A survey study of female radiation oncology residents’ experiences to inform change. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;104:999–1008.
6. Klein R, Julian KA, Snyder ED, et al. Gender bias in resident assessment in graduate medical education: review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34:712–719.
7. Arnold LF, Zargham SR, Gordon CE, et al. Sexual harassment during residency training: a cross-sectional analysis. Am Surg 2020;86:65–72.
8. Schlick CJR, Ellis RJ, Etkin CD, et al. Experiences of gender discrimination and sexual harassment among residents in general surgery programs across the US. JAMA Surg 2021;156:942–952.
9. Jena AB, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex differences in physician salary in US public medical schools. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1294–1304.
10. Sarsons H. Interpreting signals in the labor market: evidence from medical referrals. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sarsons/files/sarsons_jmp_01.pdf. Published October 31, 2017. Accessed October 24, 2023.
11. Carr PL, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al. Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the National Faculty Survey. Acad Med 2018;93:1694–1699.
12. Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, et al. Sex differences in academic rank in US medical schools in 2014. JAMA 2015;314:1149–1158.
13. Richter KP, Clark L, Wick JA, et al. Women physicians and promotion in academic medicine. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2148–2157.
14. Santhosh L, Harleman E, Venado A, et al. Strategies for forming effective women’s groups. Clin Teach 2021;18:126–130.
15. Bauman MD, Howell LP, Villablanca AC. The women in medicine and health science program: an innovative initiative to support female faculty at the University of California Davis School of Medicine. Acad Med 2014; 89:1462–1466.
16. Bhatia K, Takayesu JK, Arbelaez C, et al. An innovative educational and mentorship program for emergency medicine women residents to enhance academic development and retention. CJEM 2015;17:685–688.
17. Zhong L, Lee K, Baggstrom MQ, et al. Investing in women trainees: building a women in medicine group at an academic institution. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e47783.
18. American Medical Association. FREIDATM AMA residency & fellowship database. https://freida.ama-assn.org/. Accessed July 24, 2022.
19. Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, et al. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers. Acad Med 2013;88:82–89.
20. Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA. Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med 2013;88:1029–1037.
21. Cross M, Lee S, Bridgman H, et al. Benefits, barriers and enablers of mentoring female health academics: an integrative review. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0215319.
22. Laver KE, Prichard IJ, Cations M, et al. A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020380.
