Ashvini K Reddy1, Gregory W Bounds2, Sophie J Bakri3, Lynn K Gordon4, Justine R Smith5, Julia A Haller6, Jennifer E Thorne7. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston. 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 5. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. 6. Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland7Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Women in ophthalmology are growing in number and have made strides in traditional metrics of professional achievement. Professional ties to industry represent another potential means of career advancement, recognition, and income. OBJECTIVE: To report the representation of women among ophthalmologists receiving industry remuneration for research, consulting, honoraria, grants, royalties, and faculty/speaker roles. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this observational, retrospective study, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments to ophthalmologists by biomedical companies was reviewed for representation, median payments, and mean payments by women and men for industry relationships in 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed from July 2015 to November 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were percentage representation of women vs men overall and in industry research, consulting, speaking roles, royalties and licenses, grants, services other than consulting, and honoraria. Secondary outcome measures included mean and median payments from industry to female vs male ophthalmologists. RESULTS: In 2013, 4164 of 21 380 (19.5%) ophthalmologists were women, and of 1204 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 176 (4.2%) women had industry ties compared with 1028 (6%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $11 419 compared with $20 957 for men (P = .001), and median payments to women were $3000 compared with $4787 for men (P = .007). In 2013, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (49 of 462 [10.6%]), consulting (96 of 610 [15.7%]), honoraria (3 of 47 [6.4%]), industry grants (1 of 7 [14.3%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 13 [7.7%]), and faculty/speaker roles (2 of 48 [4.2%]). In 2014, 4352 of 21 531 (20.2%) of ophthalmologists were women. Of 1518 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 255 (6%) women had industry ties compared with 1263 (7.4%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $14 848 compared with $30 513 for men (P = .004), and median payments to women were $3750 compared with $5000 for men (P = .005). Women remained underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (25 of 241 [10.4%]), consulting (145 of 921 [15.7%]), honoraria (14 of 11 [12.6%]), industry grants (3 of 25 [12.0%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 22 [4.6%]), and faculty/speaker roles (21 of 189 [11.1%]) in 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women make up a minority of ophthalmologists with professional industry relationships, and the average woman partnering with industry earns less than her male colleagues. The reasons for differences are multifactorial and could not be determined by this study.
IMPORTANCE: Women in ophthalmology are growing in number and have made strides in traditional metrics of professional achievement. Professional ties to industry represent another potential means of career advancement, recognition, and income. OBJECTIVE: To report the representation of women among ophthalmologists receiving industry remuneration for research, consulting, honoraria, grants, royalties, and faculty/speaker roles. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this observational, retrospective study, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database for payments to ophthalmologists by biomedical companies was reviewed for representation, median payments, and mean payments by women and men for industry relationships in 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed from July 2015 to November 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were percentage representation of women vs men overall and in industry research, consulting, speaking roles, royalties and licenses, grants, services other than consulting, and honoraria. Secondary outcome measures included mean and median payments from industry to female vs male ophthalmologists. RESULTS: In 2013, 4164 of 21 380 (19.5%) ophthalmologists were women, and of 1204 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 176 (4.2%) women had industry ties compared with 1028 (6%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $11 419 compared with $20 957 for men (P = .001), and median payments to women were $3000 compared with $4787 for men (P = .007). In 2013, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (49 of 462 [10.6%]), consulting (96 of 610 [15.7%]), honoraria (3 of 47 [6.4%]), industry grants (1 of 7 [14.3%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 13 [7.7%]), and faculty/speaker roles (2 of 48 [4.2%]). In 2014, 4352 of 21 531 (20.2%) of ophthalmologists were women. Of 1518 ophthalmologists analyzed for industry payments, 255 (6%) women had industry ties compared with 1263 (7.4%) men (P < .001). Mean payments to women were $14 848 compared with $30 513 for men (P = .004), and median payments to women were $3750 compared with $5000 for men (P = .005). Women remained underrepresented among ophthalmologists receiving industry payments for research (25 of 241 [10.4%]), consulting (145 of 921 [15.7%]), honoraria (14 of 11 [12.6%]), industry grants (3 of 25 [12.0%]), royalties and licenses (1 of 22 [4.6%]), and faculty/speaker roles (21 of 189 [11.1%]) in 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women make up a minority of ophthalmologists with professional industry relationships, and the average woman partnering with industry earns less than her male colleagues. The reasons for differences are multifactorial and could not be determined by this study.
Authors: Mckenzee Chiam; Mona L Camacci; Erik B Lehman; Michael C Chen; Gargi K Vora; Seth M Pantanelli Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Amy R Deipolyi; Anton S Becker; Anne M Covey; Susan C Chimonas; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Howard P Forman; William A Copen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 6.582
Authors: Jayanth Sridhar; Ajay E Kuriyan; Yoshihiro Yonekawa; Audina Berrocal; M Ali Khan; R V Paul Chan; Julia A Haller Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.258