Logo image
Gender Representation Among United States Medical Board Leadership
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Gender Representation Among United States Medical Board Leadership

Jeremy W. Jacobs, Reshma Jagsi, Fatima Cody Stanford, Danielle Sarno, Nancy D. Spector, Julie K. Silver and Garrett S. Booth
Journal of women's health (Larchmont, N.Y. 2002), v 31(12), pp 1710-1718
01 Dec 2022
PMID: 36318764
url
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2022.0271View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)Open Access (License Unspecified) Open

Abstract

General & Internal Medicine Life Sciences & Biomedicine Medicine, General & Internal Obstetrics & Gynecology Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Science & Technology Social Sciences Women's Studies
Objective: To assess the gender composition of the American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) member boards and evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and a subset of women physicians.Methods: The gender of individuals on 24 boards as of March 1, 2022, was assessed. Two benchmarks-parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared to the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty)-were utilized to determine if women are equitably represented on medical boards.Results: Four hundred forty individuals hold 449 total positions on the boards examined. Of board the members, 60.7% (267/440) are men, and 92.3% (406/440) are physicians. Physician board members comprised more men (64.0%, 260/406; p < 0.001), whereas more women comprise the 34 nonphysician board members (79.4%, 27/34; p < 0.001). Using specialty representation (equity) as the benchmark, of 22 specialties for which physician gender/sex data are available, women physicians are underrepresented on 36.4% (8/22) of boards. When parity (50%) is the comparator, 72.0% (18/25) of boards comprised less than 50% women. Compared to a 2016 analysis, the proportion of women overall (including non-physicians) increased on 68.0% (17/25), decreased on 24.0% (6/25), and remained unchanged on 8.0% (2/25) of boards in 2022.Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards. Our findings suggest that progress should not be assumed and that it may be subject to setbacks when it occurs. There is a need to continue to monitor the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards.

Metrics

8 Record Views
14 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#4 Quality Education
#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Women's Studies
Logo image