View
9
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Dow
nloadedfrom
https://journals.lww.com
/ajpmrby
BhDMf5ePH
Kav1zEoum1tQ
fN4a+kJLhEZgbsIH
o4XMi0hC
ywCX1AW
nYQp/IlQ
rHD3i3D
0OdR
yi7TvSFl4Cf3VC
1y0abggQZXdtw
nfKZBYtws=
on12/23/2020
Downloadedfromhttps://journals.lww.com/ajpmrbyBhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws=on12/23/2020
1
Association of Academic Physiatrists Women’s Task Force Follow-up Report
Julie K. Silver, MD1, Sara Cuccurullo, MD
2, Lyn Weiss, MD
3, Christopher Visco, MD
4,
Gwendolyn Sowa, MD, PhD5, Mooyeon Oh-Park, MD
6, Danielle Perret Karimi, MD
7,
Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD8, Talya K. Fleming, MD
9, Glendaliz Bosques, MD
10,
Anne Felicia Ambrose, MD, MS11
, Tiffany Knowlton, JD, MBA12
1Harvard Medical School and Spaulding Rehabilitation Network; Association of Academic
Physiatrists Women’s Task Force Co-Chairperson
2JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School/Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine; Association of Academic Physiatrists
Women’s Task Force Co-Chairperson
3New York University, Winthrop Hospital, Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine
4Ursula Corning Associate Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine and Vice Chair of Education,
Department of Rehabilitation and Regenerative Medicine, Columbia University Vagelos College
of Physicians and Surgeons; Director of Residency Training in Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation and Director of Fellowship Training in Sports Medicine, NewYork-Presbyterian
Hospital, Columbia and Cornell
5University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
6Burke Rehabilitation Hospital, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Health System
7University of California Irvine School of Medicine
8University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Articles Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001670
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
2
9JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School/Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine
10McGovern Medical School at University of Texas Health Science Center, Shriners Hospital for
Children in Houston, and TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital
11Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
12Executive Director, Association of Academic Physiatrists
J.K.S. and S.C contributed equally
Corresponding Author
Julie K. Silver, MD
Address: 300 1st Avenue, Charlestown, MA 02025
Email: Julie_silver@hms.harvard.edu
Phone: 617-680-9504
Fax: 508-718-4035
Author Disclosures
Julie K. Silver, MD – None related to this work. As an academic physician, Dr. Silver has
published books and receives royalties from book publishers, and she gives professional talks
such as grand rounds and medical conference plenary lectures and receives honoraria from
conference organizers. She has participated in research funded by The Arnold P. Gold
Foundation (physician and patient care disparities), Binational Scientific Foundation (culinary
telemedicine research, and the Warshaw Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
3
Department of Medical Oncology (pancreatic cancer). Dr. Silver is an uncompensated founding
member of TIMES UP Healthcare.
Sara Cuccurullo, MD – None related to this work. As an academic physician, Dr. Cuccurullo has
published textbooks and receives royalties from publishers; which are donated to the JFK
Johnson Resident Education fund. She has participated in research funded by The Wallerstein
Foundation, The North Eastern Cerebrovascular Consortium and an unrestricted grant from
NuStep. Dr. Cuccurullo speaks at Medical Conferences, and all honoraria are donated to
education.
Anne Felicia Ambrose, MD – None related to this work. As a researcher, Dr. Ambrose has
received and is currently receiving funding from National Institute of Aging.
Glendaliz Bosques, MD – No related or unrelated disclosures to report.
Talya K. Fleming, MD – None related to this work. Dr. Fleming has participated in research
funded by The Wallerstein Foundation, The North Eastern Cerebrovascular Consortium, an
unrestricted grant from NuStep, and the Fred C. Rummel Foundation.
Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD – Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation. Unrelated to this work, Dr. Frontera reports speaker honoraria, book
royalties, and National Institutes of Health funding.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
4
Danielle Perret Karimi, MD – None related to this work. Unrelated to this work, Dr. Karimi has
participated in research funded by the Arnold P. Gold Foundation (humanism in medicine). She
has a financial investment as a shareholder in Graceland Hospice.
Mooyeon Oh-Park, MD – No disclosures related to this work. Unrelated, Dr. Oh-Park discloses
that she has grant funding from the David Ju Foundation for transition of care for stroke
rehabilitation.
Gwendolyn Sowa, MD, PhD – No disclosures related to this work. Unrelated Dr. Sowa reports
funding from National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and
The Pittsburgh Foundation. Unrelated non-financial disclosure member of UPMC for You Board
of Directors.
Christopher Visco, MD – None related to this work. Unrelated Dr. Visco reports speaking at
medical conferences with honoraria. Consulting services to Mimedx for ultrasound and injection
topics.
Lyn Weiss, MD - None related to this work. As an academic physician, Dr. Weiss has published
books and receives royalties from book publishers, and she gives professional talks such as grand
rounds and medical conference lectures.
Tiffany Knowlton, JD, MBA – No related or unrelated disclosures to report.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
5
Article Disclosures
Funding Information – No funding was received for this work.
Previous Presentation – No previous presentation of this research, manuscript, or article occurred
in the public domain.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
6
Abstract
The Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP) convened a Women’s Task Force in 2016,
under the leadership of then AAP President Gerard Francisco, MD, to evaluate data and metrics
pertaining to the representation and inclusion of women physiatrists in the society. An initial
published report focused on a retrospective analysis of data in categories such as leadership,
conference presentations, and recognition awards. The findings, which highlighted areas in
which the AAP had been successful in supporting gender equity as well as areas in which women
physiatrists were underrepresented, provided a base from which to strategically focus on closing
gaps in representation. The task force developed an action plan that was approved by the Board
of Trustees and included strategies aimed at closing gaps and collecting data to determine
corresponding effectiveness. Because most of the categories fell under the supervision of various
AAP committees, an appointee from each committee ("diversity steward") liaised with the
Women’s Task Force. The diversity stewards reviewed the plan with their respective committees
and collected data within their committee’s purview. This task force follow-up report documents
recent progress, consistent with the AAP Board of Trustees commitment to transparency and
gender equity.
Keywords
Physicians, women; leadership; societies; education, medical
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
7
Introduction
Gender disparities for women in academic medicine are well documented,1-8
and there are
numerous studies that have focused on the specialty of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
(PM&R).9-14
Thus, in 2016, the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP), the sole
professional society focused on academic physiatry, organized a presidential task force to
identify priority areas, needs, existing resources, opportunities, barriers, and other issues related
to advancing women physicians in the field and achieving the goal of gender equity in physiatry.
The members included a group of 12 academic physiatrists with diversity in gender,
race/ethnicity, career stage, geographic region, institution, and subspecialty focus. The task force
also received support from AAP staff members. Meetings were held on a regular basis from
2016-2020 and, throughout, the task force followed a 6-step process that has been previously
described in the literature.14
The steps included: 1) examining data; 2) transparently reporting
results to stakeholders; 3) investigating causality; 4) implementing strategic interventions; 5)
tracking outcomes and adjusting strategies; and 6) publishing and disseminating results.
In 2018, the task force published an initial report that focused on a retrospective analysis of AAP
staff-supplied society data from 2008 to 2017 in relevant categories such as leadership positions
(ie, board membership, board presidents, committee membership, committee chairs, and resident
fellow physician chairs), conference presentations (ie, annual meeting session proposals, annual
meeting faculty, annual meeting plenary speakers) and recognition awards (ie, recognition award
nominations and recipients).9 The findings highlighted areas in which the AAP had been
successful in supporting gender equity as well as areas in which women physiatrists were
underrepresented. These data provided a base from which to strategically focus on closing gaps
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
8
in representation where they existed. Thereafter, the task force developed an action plan,
approved by the AAP’s Board of Trustees on November 2, 2017, which included strategies
aimed at closing gender equity gaps and collecting data to determine effectiveness. The Board of
Trustees, in making a commitment to transparency and reporting to members and stakeholders,
requested the task force generate an approximately 3-year follow-up report including data
acquired after the original report was published.
Methods
In this approximate 3-year update to an original report analyzing society metrics for years 2008
through 2017, the focus again was the representation of women versus men physiatrists. Non-
physiatrists were generally excluded (unless noted). Like the initial report, this study did not
involve work with human subjects, did not require institutional review board approval. This
study conforms to all CONSORT guidelines and reports the required information accordingly
(see Supplemental Checklist, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/PHM/B193).
To facilitate the update of society metrics for years 2008 through 2019 or 2020 depending on the
category, the task force convened in person meetings annually at the AAP 2017 through 2020
conferences and participated in regularly scheduled conference calls. The task force members,
having agreed on a list of metrics in the original report,9 used the same categories to
prospectively collect an additional approximately 3 years of data for this follow-up report. The
aforementioned 6-step process was used,14
and the task force created a list of goals and
recommendations that was shared with key stakeholders. Categories examined are listed in Table
1.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
9
From the initial Women’s Task Force publication in 2018, key targeted areas were identified as
areas that could be improved upon, and an initial action plan formulated to address these
findings. Each of the key targeted areas was specific to an AAP committee that was responsible
for the oversight. For example, recognition awards fell under oversight of The Leadership
Development and Recognition Committee (LDRC). A Diversity Data Steward (DDS) was
chosen from each of the committees. The Women’s Task Force worked with the DDSs
collaboratively to develop and execute an action plan specific for their targeted area.
The DDSs were asked to educate their AAP committee members on the metrics and results and
investigate possible causality (eg, whether lack of nominations was one factor why women were
underrepresented in the recognition awards category). Each committee was challenged with the
development and implementation of a specific action plan that was to be directed at the gaps that
were identified in the data presented (eg, include more female faculty presenters at the annual
AAP meetings). The task force met with the DDSs at the national meeting annually and during
the year via phone conference for the duration of the data collection. Updated data were shared
with the DDSs. All members of the Leadership Development and Recognition Committee, a
committee that has considerable influence over some of the key metrics, also participated in
mandatory implicit bias training.
AAP staff provided the task force members with medical society data that was used in both this
and the original report. During each year for which subsets of membership data were available
(2013-2019), 0 to 20 (average [SD], 11 [6.7]) physiatrist members were reported as unknown
gender; accounting for 0 to 1.4% (average [SD], 0.9% [0.5%]) of all physiatrists. The members
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
10
of unknown gender were not included in gender-related analyses and therefore the number of
members reported in gender-related analyses differs slightly from those reported for overall
physiatrist membership. In this report, the term “all physiatrists” refers to the sum of physiatrists
and physiatrists-in-training.
Results
To facilitate comparison, findings for each of the examined categories are presented in Table 1
alongside data from the original report.
Physiatrist Membership
Key Point: Compared to the original report, membership in the AAP increased by 11%, but the
proportion of women physiatrists remained stable at 41%, consistent with the representation of
women physicians in academic PM&R nationally.
Physiatrist membership in the AAP before and after the follow-up study period is summarized in
Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1. Overall, the number of physiatrist members (Table 2) increased by
157 individuals (10.9%) between 2017 and 2019. The proportion of women physiatrists (Table
1) remained consistent at approximately 41%.
Proportional membership in the AAP was similar to the most recent physician gender data
reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The AAMC reported that
the percentage of active women PM&R physicians in 2017 was 35.3% (n=3,284 of 9,316)15
and
the percentage of women physicians in academic PM&R departments in 2018 was 41.9% (n=487
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
11
of 1162).16
Thus, the gender membership of the AAP is very similar to the percentages of men
and women physicians in academic PM&R.
Board of Trustees Membership
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was an increase in the percentage of women
physiatrists overall and among the voting members of the AAP Board of Trustees, with women
physiatrists equitably represented when compared with their percentages among the general
membership.
There was an improvement in the representation of women members on the AAP Board of
Trustees and Voting Board of Trustees. Board members who were not physiatrists were excluded
from these data. From the original report, between 2008 and 2017, the percentage of women
among the physiatrist members of the Board of Trustees ranged from 18% to 38%. Follow-up
analysis revealed overall progress as demonstrated in Table 1 and Figure 2. Importantly, a key
marker of equitable inclusion is voting membership, and the representation of women voting
members doubled from 25% in 2017 to 50% in 2020.
Presidential Leadership
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was a decrease in the percentage of women
physiatrist-years as president because the succession order was set, and men were slated for
president during the follow-up study period. However, between 2021 and 2025, 2 women are
slated to be president.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
12
The AAP has 2-year presidential terms, and from 2008 to 2020, a woman was president for 2
years (15.4%; a decrease from the original study at 20%) [Table 1]. However, at the time of the
original report, the presidential succession plan was already set for the follow-up study period
and, therefore, there was no opportunity to make changes either positive or negative. Notably,
between 2021 and 2025, 2 women will serve in successive terms as president.
Committee Membership
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was progress in closing the gender gap
among committee members and chairs; women were equitably included as committee members
from 2017-2020 and as committee chairs from 2019-2020.
There were 7 committees within the AAP. These included: education, governance, leadership
development and recognition, membership, program, public policy, and research. Until 2017, the
representation of women physiatrists on committees lagged the overall percentage of women
physiatrists in the AAP. Notably, in 2017, there were 7 men and no women physiatrists serving
as committee chairs. From 2018-2020, women physiatrists became equitably represented as
committee members and chairs at approximately 45% [Table 1 and Figure 3A]. In 2018, because
1 woman was included as a committee chair, the proportion increased from 0% to 14%. In 2019
and 2020, there were 3 women and 4 men chairs, so women physiatrists were equitably
represented at 42.9% [Table 1 and Figure 3B].
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
13
Resident Fellow Council Chair
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was progress in closing the gap regarding the
representation of women physiatrists-in-training among chairs of the AAP’s Resident Fellow
Council.
The Resident Fellow Council leadership process begins with an application from a resident or
fellow, which is reviewed by the LDRC. If there are more than 3 applicants, they are ranked by
the LDRC, and the 3 highest-ranked residents/fellows are listed on a ballot. The Council chair is
then selected by vote of the attendees at the Resident Fellow Council meeting held during the
annual national conference. During the original study period (2008-2017), the proportion of
women in-training physiatrists among council chairs was 20%. The follow-up 2018-2020 study
period included 1 man and 2 women chairs (n=2 of 3; 66.7%). This increased the proportion of
women Resident Fellow Council chairs from 20% to 33.3% (n=4 of 12) over the entire study
period (2008-2020). For comparison, women comprised approximately 40% of AAP’s
physiatrists-in-training in 2019 [Table 1] and 39.6% of ACGME residents and fellows in
physical medicine and rehabilitation in 2017.17
Annual Meeting Session Proposals, Faculty & Plenary Speakers
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was progress in maintaining the equitable
inclusion of women faculty in the sessions presented at the AAP annual meeting overall. Women
physiatrist plenary speakers were not included in the AAP’s 2018 or 2019 standalone annual
meetings. However, the 2020 combined AAP/ International Society of Physical and
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
14
Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM) meeting included 60% (n=3 of 5) women physiatrist plenary
speakers.
There was an upward trend in women physiatrists presenting at the annual meeting prior to the
work of this task force, and the trend was further supported by members’ general awareness of
the task force’s efforts (eg, the original published report) and the diversity steward’s work with
the Program Committee and the Women’s Task Force. For example, in 2015, the first year
during which there was a call for session proposals, the annual meeting consisted of proposed
sessions as well as sessions developed internally by the program committee. Regarding session
submissions, 29% were submitted by women in 2015. Representation markedly improved the
following 2 years, 2016 and 2017, and women comprised 47% and 40%, respectively, of lead
faculty on submissions. The percentage of women physiatrists presenting at the annual meeting
increased from 21% in 2010 to 44% in 2017. In 2018 and 2019, slightly more than 40% of
submissions were led by women, and women physiatrists comprised approximately 44% of
presenters. In 2020, the AAP held a combined meeting with the ISPRM, and the number of
presenters approximately doubled with women comprising 39.8% (n=129 of 324) [Figure 4A].
In the original report, women physiatrists were represented at disproportionately low levels as
plenary speakers at AAP annual meetings. Because no women physiatrists were selected as
plenary speakers for the 2018 and 2019 meetings, this gap increased in this follow-up report. At
standalone AAP meetings during 2010-2019 among plenary speakers who were physiatrists, 3
(21.4%) were women and 11 (78.6%) were men. In 2020, at the combined AAP/ISPRM meeting,
women were included among physiatrist plenary speakers (n=3 of 5; 60.0%) for the first time
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
15
since 2017 [Figure 4B]. The AAP and ISPRM worked together to select plenary speakers, and
there was a different format than the usual 3 plenary speakers allotted 1 hour each. At the
AAP/ISPMR joint meeting, 11 plenary speakers were allotted 30 minutes each. Notably, the
AAP attempts to find non-physiatrist experts on a broad range of topics for plenary speakers.
Recognition Award Recipients
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was progress from 23.6% to 32.9% of the
AAP recognition awards being received by women.
Between 2008 and 2017 (original report), a total of 55 recognition awards were given to
physicians in 8 categories with 13 (23.6%) women recipients. In the follow-up report (2008-
2020), there were 82 awards and the proportion of women recipients increased to 32.9% (n=27).
During the 4 years leading up to our original report (2014-2017), there was 1 woman among 22
physician recipients (4.5%) across all categories. In contrast, during the follow-up study period
(2018-2020), 14 (53.8%) women received awards. Although progress has been made, women
physicians were underrepresented in all award categories except the 2 early career awards.
Award categories in which women physicians continue to be underrepresented were: Carolyn
Braddom Ritzler Research (0%), American Journal of Physician Medicine & Rehabilitation
(AJPM&R) Outstanding Reviewer (0%), Distinguished Member (14%), AJPM&R Excellence in
Research Writing (33%), McLean Outstanding Resident/Fellow (22%), Outstanding Service
(25%), Distinguished Academician (31%), and Innovation & Impact in Education (33%) [Figure
5A].
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
16
Corresponding nomination data were available for years 2014 to 2020. In the original report of
award and nomination data from 2014 to 2017, comparison of the likelihood of success (%
awardees / nominees) revealed that men (46.7%) were far more likely to win an award than
women (5.6%). Moreover, a lack of nominations was identified as 1 causal factor. For example,
no women were nominated for the Distinguished Academician and Outstanding Service Awards
during the original study period. To determine the impact of recent efforts to increase the
nomination of women since our original report, success analysis was performed on equal subsets
of years during which nomination data were available (ie, 2015-2017 versus 2018-2020). During
2015-2017, even when women were nominated, their likelihood of success in winning awards
was zero, as evidenced by the absence of women awardees in the Carolyn Braddom Ritzler
Research, Early Career Young Academician, and McLean Outstanding Resident/Fellow
categories [Figure 5B]. Concerted effort during years 2018-2020 resulted in an ~10% increase in
the nomination of women for awards [Figure 5C]. A woman’s likelihood of success in winning
any award during these years increased to 35.0% and was higher than that of men (21.1%).
Specifically, a woman’s likelihood of success increased from 15.4%-50.0% for all awards except
the Carolyn Braddom Ritzler Research award which remained at 0%. During years 2018-2020,
men had greater likelihood of success than women in winning the Outstanding Service, Carolyn
Braddom Ritzler Research, and Distinguished Academician Awards. In contrast, women had
greater likelihood of success than men in winning the Innovation & Impact in Education,
McLean Outstanding Resident/Fellow, and Early Career Young Academician Awards.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
17
Program for Academic Leadership (PAL) and Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training
Program (RMSTP)
Key Point (PAL): Compared to the original report, inclusion of women among PAL candidates
decreased overall, although equity was maintained with both the general and early career
member groups because women were previously overrepresented.
PAL is currently a 3-year mentored program to enhance leadership skills and has run annually in
its current form since 2007. Early career members of the AAP who are between 2 and 8 years
post training and are at or below the associate professor level are eligible to apply. Since 2007,
PAL accepted 54 (59%) men and 37 (41%) women. Between 2013 and 2017, the percentage of
women among PAL candidates ranged from 28% to 60% [Figure 6A]. There was a decline in the
percentage of women in PAL in 2015 (33%) and 2016 (29%). Although this trend began
reversing in 2017 (50%), it declined again thereafter, albeit not to the same degree (range, 38%
to 40%).
Compared with the original report, the representation of women among PAL graduates since
1999 remained consistent, with women accounting for 35% (34 of 98) of PAL graduates through
2016 and 34% (37 of 108) of PAL graduates through 2019. Although graduates were tallied
according to their highest combined (academic and administrative) rank in the original report, for
this follow-up report, graduates were tallied separately according to their highest academic and
highest administrative ranks [Figure 6B]. This change reflects that promotion along academic
and administrative ladders may be independent, but inhibits direct comparison with the original
data. Academically, men and women PAL graduates were equally represented among assistant
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
18
professors (men, 48%; women, 52%). However, women PAL graduates were represented at
progressively lower levels than men as rank advanced to associate professor (men, 66%; women,
34%; difference, 32%) and full professor (men, 87%; women, 13%; difference, 74%).
Administrative rank analysis revealed a similar pattern, with women PAL graduates represented
at progressively lower levels than men as rank advanced from director (men, 59%; women, 41%;
difference, 18%), to vice-chair (men, 75%; women, 25%; difference, 50%), and department chair
or chief (men, 86%; women, 14%; difference, 72%).
The RMSTP accepts pre-applicants on a competitive basis. Successful completion of the
program includes participation in training workshops and mentorship. From 2006-2016, the
RMSTP included 53 men pre-applicants (46%) and 62 women pre-applicants (54%). As
described in the original report, between 2013 and 2016 (the years for which comparable
membership data were available), the percentage of women pre-applicants accepted into the
RMSTP exceeded the percentage of women physiatrist AAP members and exceeded or matched
the percentage of women members in the early career or in-training AAP membership categories.
In this follow-up report (2017-2019), the percentages of women RMSTP pre-applicants (range,
44%-55%) continued to meet or exceed the proportion of women physiatrists in general, early
career, and in-training AAP membership categories [Figure 6C]. Comparison of data from 2019
and 2020 revealed a considerable decrease in both the numbers of RMSTP pre-applicants (n=20
vs n=8, respectively) and in the percentage of women among RMSTP pre-applicants (55% vs
25%, respectively).
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
19
In the original report including data through 2016, women accounted for 41% (11 of 27) of
RMSTP graduates. In this follow-up report, women accounted for 37% (14 of 38) of RMSTP
graduates through 2019. Although graduates were tallied according to their highest combined
(academic and administrative) rank at the time of the original report, for this follow-up report,
graduates were tallied separately according to their current highest academic and highest
administrative ranks [Figure 6D]. This change reflects that promotion along academic and
administrative ladders may be independent, but prevents direct comparison with the original
data. Academically, the representation of women was lower than men at the ranks of assistant
professor (difference, 18%) and associate professor (difference, 38%). However, equal numbers
of men and women ranked as full professors (n=3 each of 6; 50%). Administrative rank analysis
revealed similar results, with the representation of women lower than that of men at the ranks of
director (difference, 28%) and vice-chair (difference, 20%). However, there were more women
than men ranked at the level of department chair or chief (n=2 versus 1, respectively) in 2019.
AJPM&R Editors
Key Point: Compared to the original report, there was progress in closing the gender gap for
all women editors and US women physiatrist editors, with the percentages of women increasing
from 24% to 33% and 28% to 38%, respectively.
The AJPM&R is the official journal of the AAP. The gender distribution of AJPM&R editorial
board members from 2005 to 2020 was analyzed, including editors-in-chief, all associate editors,
and all editorial board members. Excluded were an emeritus editor, executive editors, managing
editors, and special section editors, because historical data on these categories were not available.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
20
Most of the editors were physiatrists from the United States (US) although there were also US
non-physician (PhD), international physiatrist, and international non-physiatrist editors. In the
original report, both the number of editorial positions as well as the representation of women
editors increased during the 13-year study period (2005-2017). At the end of the original study
period (2017), 24% of the national and international editors were women (n=12 of 51). At the
end of the follow-up study period (2019), this percentage increased to 37.5% (n=18 of 48).
Similarly, 28% of the US physiatrist editors were women in 2017, increasing to 38% (n=18 of
47) in 2020 [Figure 7].
Discussion
Professional societies are critically important to the advancement and representation of academic
faculty. Overall, this follow-up report demonstrates progress in the equitable representation of
women physicians in the AAP when compared with the original report. Stability in the equitable
inclusion of women between the original report and this follow-up report was found in the
General Membership, Committee Membership, Annual Meeting Session Proposal, Annual
Meeting Faculty, PAL candidate, and RMSTP pre-applicant (through 2019) categories.
Improvement in the representation of women between the original report and this follow-up
report was found in the Board of Trustee Membership, Voting Board of Trustee Membership,
Committee Chair, Resident Fellow Council Chair, aggregate Recognition Award Recipient and
Nominee, and AJPM&R Editor categories. However, there were several categories in which
women remain represented at much lower levels than their representation among the membership
and in the field: Presidential Leadership (which is prospectively set to improve from the years
2021 through 2025), Resident Fellow Council Chair, Plenary Speaker at stand-alone (non-
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
21
ISPMR-combined) Annual Meetings, 7 of 9 individual Recognition Award Recipient, PAL
Graduate in higher rank academic and administrative position, RMSTP Pre-applicants (in 2020)
and RMSTP Graduate in intermediate rank academic and administrative position categories.
Regarding future efforts, the AAP has conveyed an ongoing commitment to diversity, equity,
and inclusion for women physiatrists. The AAP is also focusing its efforts on people across the
gender spectrum and who identify with racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in
medicine. A commitment to supporting physiatrists with disabilities also remains strong. In
alignment with these efforts, the Membership Committee was renamed the Diversity and
Community Engagement Committee, given a revised focus, and allocated a non-voting seat on
the board. The AAP Board Action is a positive outcome related to the diversity work initiated by
the Women’s Task Force started in 2016. It speaks to the AAP’s commitment to supporting the
diversity of the AAP Membership.
Limitations
Although attempts were made to clarify any discrepancies, the task force members were not able
to account for errors in reporting of the data. Employment factors such as full-time versus part-
time and practice setting, each of which may impact an individual physician’s career growth and
participation in the AAP, were not evaluated. Notably, data sets were often small. Additionally,
data was generally not available to explain causality.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
22
Conclusion
More than 40% of the AAP members are women physicians. Retaining and supporting this
population is critically linked to achieving the mission of the organization: creating the future of
academic physiatry through mentorship, leadership, and discovery. This report demonstrates that
in a relatively short period of time, 2 to 4 years, important gains were made in closing gender
gaps at the AAP by using a data-driven approach with an action plan that included goal-setting,
diversity stewards, and implicit bias training. The AAP’s approach may serve as a model for
other professional organizations addressing workforce equity issues.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
23
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement and thanks to the AAP Diversity Stewards for their support: Adam Stein,
MD, Thiru Annaswamy, MD, Michael Saulino, MD, Miguel Escalon, MD, William Bockenek,
MD, Gary Clark, MD, and John Whyte, MD, PhD. Acknowledgement and thanks to Julie A.
Poorman, PhD for her assistance with manuscript preparation.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
24
References
1. Nocco SE, Larson AR. Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine [published
online ahead of print May 14, 2020]. J Womens Health. doi:10.1089/jwh.2019.7992
2. Carr PL, Raj A, Kaplan SE, Terrin N, Breeze JL, Freund KM. Gender differences in
academic medicine: Retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the National
Faculty Survey. Acad Med. 2018;93:1694-1699.
3. Helitzer DL, Newbill SL, Cardinali G, Morahan PS, Chang S, Magrane D. Changing the
culture of academic medicine: Critical mass or critical actors?. J Womens Health.
2017;26:540-548.
4. Silver JK, Bean AC, Slocum C, et al. Physician workforce disparities and patient care: A
narrative review. Health Equity. 2019;3:360-377.
5. Jagsi R, Means O, Lautenberger D, et al. Women's representation among members and
leaders of national medical specialty societies. Acad Med. 2020;95:1043-1049.
6. Silver JK, Ghalib R, Poorman JA, et al. Analysis of gender equity in leadership of
physician-focused medical specialty societies, 2008-2017. JAMA Intern Med.
2019;179:433-435.
7. Larson AR, Cawcutt KA, Englander MJ, et al. Representation of women in authorship
and dissemination of analyses of physician compensation. JAMA Netw Open.
2020;3:e201330.
8. Larson AR, Sharkey KM, Poorman JA, et al. Representation of women among invited
speakers at medical specialty conferences. J Womens Health. 2020;29:550-560.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
25
9. Silver JK, Cuccurullo SJ, Ambrose AF, et al. Association of Academic Physiatrists
Women's Task Force report. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;97:680-690.
10. Houtrow AJ, Pruitt DW, Zigler CK. Gender-based salary inequities among pediatric
rehabilitation medicine physicians in the United States. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2020;101:741-749.
11. Hwang J, Byrd K, Nguyen MO, Liu M, Huang Y, Bae GH. Gender and ethnic diversity
in academic PM&R faculty: National trend analysis of two decades. Am J Phys Med
Rehabil. 2017;96:593-595.
12. Silver JK, Bhatnagar S, Blauwet CA, et al. Female physicians are underrepresented in
recognition awards from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation. PM R. 2017;9:976-984.
13. Silver JK, Blauwet CA, Bhatnagar S, et al. Women physicians are underrepresented in
recognition awards from the Association of Academic Physiatrists. Am J Phys Med
Rehabil. 2018;97:34-40.
14. Silver JK, Slocum CS, Bank AM, et al. Where are the women? The underrepresentation
of women physicians among recognition award recipients from medical specialty
societies. PM R. 2017;9:804-815.
15. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2018 Physician specialty data report: Table
1.3. Number and percentage of active physicians by sex and specialty, 2017. Association
of American Medical Colleges. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/data-
reports/workforce/interactive-data/active-physicians-sex-and-specialty-2017. Accessed
November 17, 2020.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
26
16. Association of American Medical Colleges. AAMC faculty roster: Table 14. U.S.
medical school faculty by sex, degree, and department, 2018. Association of American
Medical Colleges. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-
01/2018Table14.pdf. Accessed November 17, 2020.
17. Association of American Medical Colleges. Table 2.2: Number and percentage of
ACGME residents and fellows by sex and specialty, 2017. Association of American
Medical Colleges. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/data-
reports/workforce/interactive-data/acgme-residents-and-fellows-sex-and-specialty-2017.
Accessed November 17, 2020.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
27
Figure Legends
Figure 1. Trends in AAP member gender, 2013-2019.
Figure 2. Distribution of women physiatrists among Board of Trustees, Voting Board of
Trustees, and general AAP physiatrist members, 2013-2020
Figure 3. Physiatrist committee members (A) and chairs (B) by gender, 2014-2020
Figure 4. Gender distribution among annual meeting physiatrist faculty (A) and physiatrist
plenary speakers (B).
Figure 4 Legend. In 2020 the number of faculty and plenary speakers increase dramatically
because the AAP and the ISPRM hosted a combined meeting.
Figure 5. Gender distribution among physician recognition award recipients 2008-2020 (A),
physician recognition award nominees and awardees 2015-2017 (B), and physician recognition
award nominees and awardees 2018-2020 (C)
Figure 5 Legend. For writing awards all eligible authors are considered.
Figure 6. Representation of women among training program participants and graduates: PAL
candidates (A), PAL graduates (B), RMSTP pre-applicants (C), and RMSTP graduates (D)
Figure 7. Gender distribution among US physiatrist editors of the AJPM&R
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
28
Figure 1
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
29
Figure 2
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
30
Figure 3A
Figure 3B
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
31
Figure 4A
Figure 4B
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
32
Figure 5A
Figure 5B
Figure 5C
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
33
Figure 6A
Figure 6B
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
34
Figure 6C
Figure 6D
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
35
Figure 7
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
36
Tables
Table 1. Summary of changes in AAP gender equity-related metrics between original and
follow-up Association of Academic Physiatrists Women’s Task Force reports
Table 1 Legend. Because the original and follow-up task force reports were written mid-year, not
all data for each category were available for years 2017 and 2020. For data related to the original
report, data are labeled with the applicable year (2016 or 2017). For data related to the follow-up
report, 2020 data that was unavailable at the time of writing is marked as not available (NA). For
each category, the equity indicator represents the difference between the percentage of women in
the respective data category and the percentage of women among AAP physiatrist members.
Because complete membership data were not available for 2020 at the time of writing, 2020
equity indicators are marked NA. Negative numbers reflect less than equitable representation of
women in a category (ie, percentages of women in the category that are lower than percentages
of women among physiatrist members), with the value of the equity indicator reflecting the
magnitude of the underrepresentation of women in the category. Positive numbers reflect better
than equitable representation of women (ie, percentages of women in the category that are higher
than percentages of women among physiatrist members).
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
37
Category Original report
outcomes
2019 Follow-up
report outcomes
(Change from
original report, %)
2020 Follow-up
report outcomes
(Change from
original report,
%)
General membership
Women physiatrists 2017: 40.8% 40.7% (-0.1%) NA
Presidenta
Presidential years since
2008
2017: 10 12
13
Women presidential years
since 2008
2017: 20.0% 16.7% (-3.3%)
15.4% (-4.6%)
Equity indicator 2017: -20.8 -24.0% (-3.8%) NA
Board of Trustees
Board physiatrist members 2017: 16 17 (+6.25%)
17 (+6.25%)
Women physiatrists 2017: 37.5% 47.1% (+9.6%)
47.1% (+9.6%)
Equity indicator 2017: -3.3% +6.4% (+9.7%) NA
Voting Board of Trustees
Voting physiatrist members 2017: 12 12 (No change)
12 (No change)
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
38
Women physiatrists 2017: 25.0% 41.7% (+16.7%) 50% (+25.0%)
Equity indicator 2017: -15.8%
+1.0% (+16.8%) NA
Committee membership
Committee physiatrist
members
2017: 96 100 (+4.2%)
103 9 (+7.3%)
Women physiatrists 2017: 44.8% 44.0% (-0.8%)
45.6% (+0.8%)
Equity indicator 2017: +4.0% 2019: +3.3% (-0.7%) NA
Committee chairs
Committees 2017: 7 7 (No change)
7 (No change)
Women physiatrists 2017: 0% 2.9% (+42.9%)
42.9% (+42.9%)
Equity indicator
2017: -40.8% +2.2% (+43%) NA
Resident Fellow Council chair
Chairs since 2008 2017: 10 12 (+20%)
13 (+30%)
Women chairs since 2008 2017: 20% 25% (+5%)
31% (+11%)
Equity indicator 2017: -20.8% -15.7% (+5.1%) NA
Annual meeting session proposals
Session proposals 2017: 82 171 (+108.5%) 343 (+318.3%)
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
39
Women lead faculty 2017: 40.2% 40.4% (+0.2%) 39.1% (-1.1%)
Equity indicator 2017: -0.6% -0.3% (+0.3%) NA
Annual Meeting presenters
Physiatrist presenters 2017: 100 159 (+59.0%) 324 (+224.0%)
Women physiatrist
presenters
2017: 44.0% 43.4% (-0.6%) 39.8% (-4.2%)
Equity indicator 2017: +3.2% +2.7% (-0.5%) NA
Annual meeting plenary speakers
Physiatrist faculty 2017: 2 1 (-50%) 5 (+150%)
Women physiatrist faculty 2017: 50% 0% (-50%) 60% (+10%)
Equity indicator 2017: +9.2% -40.7% (-49.9%) NA
Recognition award recipients since
2008
Physiatrist recipients 2017: 55 72 (+30.9%) 82 (+49.1%)
Women physiatrist
recipients
2017: 23.6% 31.9% (+8.3%) 32.9% (+9.3%)
Equity indicator 2017: -17.2% -8.8% (+8.4%) NA
Recognition award nominations
since 2014
Nominees 2017: 63 125 (+98.4%) 160 (+154.0%)
Women nominees 2017: 28.6% 36.8% (+8.2%) 36.3% (+7.7%)
Equity indicator 2017: -12.2% -3.9% (+8.3%) NA
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
40
Difference between
women’s and men’s
likelihood of success in
receiving an award
2017: -41.1% -11.5% (+29.6%) -6.5% (+34.6%)
Program for Academic Leadership
candidates
Physiatrist candidates / year 2017: 6 10 (+66.7%) 10 (+66.7%)
Women physiatrist
candidates
2017: 50.0% 40.0% (-10.0%) 40.0% (-10.0%)
Equity indicator 2017: +9.2 -0.7% (-9.9%) NA
Program for Academic Leadership
graduates since 1999
Graduates 2016: 98 108 (+10%) NA
Women graduates 2016: 35% 34% (-1%) NA
Equity indicator 2016: -5.8% -6.7% (-0.9%) NA
Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist
Training Program pre-applicants
Physiatrist pre-applicants /
year
2017: 9 20 (+122.2%) 8 (-11.1%)
Women physiatrist pre-
applicants
2017: 44.4% 55.0% (+10.6%) 25.0% (-19.4%)
Equity indicator 2017: +3.6% +14.3 (+10.7%) NA
Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist
Training Program Graduates since
2006
Graduates 2016: 27 38 (+41%) NA
Women graduates 2016: 41% 37% (-4%) NA
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
41
Equity indicator 2016: +0.2% -3.7% (-3.9%) NA
AJPM&R Editors
US physiatrist editors 2017: 39 48 (+23.1%) 47 (+20.5%)
Women physiatrist editors 2017: 28.2% 37.5% (+9.3%) 37.5% (+9.3%)
Equity indicator 2017: -12.6% 2019: -3.2% (+9.4%) NA
aPresidential leadership was predetermined for the follow-up study period. In contrast to other
study categories, there was no opportunity to make changes either positive or negative to equity
in the representation of women.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
42
Table 2. Physiatrist Members in the AAP, 2017-2019
Category 2017, No. 2018, No. 2019, No.
Change 2017
to 2019, %
General membership
Physiatrists – All 1438 1464 1595 10.9
Physiatrists – In training 663 672 814 22.8
Physiatrists – Completed training 768 789 781 1.7
Women physiatrist membership
Physiatrists – All 579 590 649 12.1
Physiatrists – In training 282 287 328 16.3
Physiatrists – Completed training 297 303 321 8.1
Men physiatrist membership
Physiatrists – All 839 867 946 12.8
Physiatrists – In training 374 383 486 29.9
Physiatrists – Completed training 465 484 460 -1.1
Women physiatrist proportional
membership
Physiatrists – All 40.8% 40.5% 40.7% -0.1
Physiatrists – In training 43.0% 42.8% 40.3% -2.7
Physiatrists – Completed training 39.0% 38.5% 41.1% 2.1
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ACCEPTED
Recommended