PURPOSE: We examined the evaluations given by nurses to obstetrics and gynecology residents to estimate whether gender bias was evident. BACKGROUND: Women receive more negative feedback and evaluations than men-from both sexes. Some suggest that, to be successful in traditionally male roles such as surgeon, women must manifest a warmth-related (communal) rather than competence-related (agentic) demeanor. Compared with male residents, female residents experience more interpersonal difficulties and less help from female nurses. We examined feedback provided to residents by female nurses. METHODS: We examined Professional Associate Questionnaires (2006-2014) using a mixed-methods design. We compared scores per training year by gender using Mann-Whitney and linear regression adjusting for resident and nurse cohorts. Using grounded theory analysis, we developed a coding system for blinded comments based on principles of effective feedback, medical learners' evaluation, and impression management. χ examined the proportions of negative and positive and communal and agentic comments between genders. RESULTS: We examined 2,202 evaluations: 397 (18%) for 10 men and 1,805 (82%) for 34 women. Twenty-three compliments (eg, "Great resident!") were excluded. Evaluations per training year varied: men n=77-134; women n=384-482. Postgraduate year (PGY)-1, PGY-2, and PGY-4 women had lower mean ratings (P<.035); when adjusted, the difference remained significant in PGY-2 (MWomen=1.5±0.6 compared with MMen=1.7±0.5; P=.001). Postgraduate year-1 women received disproportionately fewer positive and more negative agentic comments than PGY-1 men (positive=17.3% compared with 40%, negative=17.3% compared with 3.3%, respectively; P=.041). CONCLUSION: Evidence of gender bias in evaluations emerged; albeit subtle, women received harsher feedback as lower-level residents than men. Training in effective evaluation and gender bias management is warranted.
PURPOSE: We examined the evaluations given by nurses to obstetrics and gynecology residents to estimate whether gender bias was evident. BACKGROUND:Women receive more negative feedback and evaluations than men-from both sexes. Some suggest that, to be successful in traditionally male roles such as surgeon, women must manifest a warmth-related (communal) rather than competence-related (agentic) demeanor. Compared with male residents, female residents experience more interpersonal difficulties and less help from female nurses. We examined feedback provided to residents by female nurses. METHODS: We examined Professional Associate Questionnaires (2006-2014) using a mixed-methods design. We compared scores per training year by gender using Mann-Whitney and linear regression adjusting for resident and nurse cohorts. Using grounded theory analysis, we developed a coding system for blinded comments based on principles of effective feedback, medical learners' evaluation, and impression management. χ examined the proportions of negative and positive and communal and agentic comments between genders. RESULTS: We examined 2,202 evaluations: 397 (18%) for 10 men and 1,805 (82%) for 34 women. Twenty-three compliments (eg, "Great resident!") were excluded. Evaluations per training year varied: men n=77-134; women n=384-482. Postgraduate year (PGY)-1, PGY-2, and PGY-4women had lower mean ratings (P<.035); when adjusted, the difference remained significant in PGY-2 (MWomen=1.5±0.6 compared with MMen=1.7±0.5; P=.001). Postgraduate year-1 women received disproportionately fewer positive and more negative agentic comments than PGY-1men (positive=17.3% compared with 40%, negative=17.3% compared with 3.3%, respectively; P=.041). CONCLUSION: Evidence of gender bias in evaluations emerged; albeit subtle, women received harsher feedback as lower-level residents than men. Training in effective evaluation and gender bias management is warranted.
Authors: Robin Klein; Katherine A Julian; Erin D Snyder; Jennifer Koch; Nneka N Ufere; Anna Volerman; Ann E Vandenberg; Sarah Schaeffer; Kerri Palamara Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Erin M Corsini; Jessica G Y Luc; Kyle G Mitchell; Nadine S Turner; Ara A Vaporciyan; Mara B Antonoff Journal: Surg Today Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Alexandra E Rojek; Raman Khanna; Joanne W L Yim; Rebekah Gardner; Sarah Lisker; Karen E Hauer; Catherine Lucey; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Judith A Linden; Alan H Breaud; Jasmine Mathews; Kerry K McCabe; Jeffrey I Schneider; James H Liu; Leslie E Halpern; Rebecca J Barron; Brian Clyne; Jessica L Smith; Douglas F Kauffman; Michael S Dempsey; Tracey A Dechert; Patricia M Mitchell Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-03-30
Authors: Robin Klein; Nneka N Ufere; Sowmya R Rao; Jennifer Koch; Anna Volerman; Erin D Snyder; Sarah Schaeffer; Vanessa Thompson; Ana Sofia Warner; Katherine A Julian; Kerri Palamara Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01