Jean Anderson Eloy1,2,3,4, Michael Bobian5, Peter F Svider5, Ashley Culver5, Bianca Siegel5, Stacey T Gray6,7, Soly Baredes1,2, Sujana S Chandrasekhar8, Adam J Folbe9. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. 2. Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Neurological Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Department of Otolaryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston. 8. New York Otology, New York, New York and Department of Otolaryngology, Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine. 9. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Abstract
Importance: Gender disparities continue to exist in the medical profession, including potential disparities in industry-supported financial contributions. Although there are potential drawbacks to industry relationships, such industry ties have the potential to promote scholarly discourse and increase understanding and accessibility of novel technologies and drugs. Objectives: To evaluate whether gender disparities exist in relationships between pharmaceutical and/or medical device industries and academic otolaryngologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: An analysis of bibliometric data and industry funding of academic otolaryngologists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payments as reported within the CMS Open Payment Database. Methods: Online faculty listings were used to determine academic rank, fellowship training, and gender of full-time faculty otolaryngologists in the 100 civilian training programs in the United States. Industry contributions to these individuals were evaluated using the CMS Open Payment Database, which was created by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in response to increasing public and regulatory interest in industry relationships and aimed to increase the transparency of such relationships. The Scopus database was used to determine bibliometric indices and publication experience (in years) for all academic otolaryngologists. Results: Of 1514 academic otolaryngologists included in this analysis, 1202 (79.4%) were men and 312 (20.6%) were women. In 2014, industry contributed a total of $4.9 million to academic otolaryngologists. $4.3 million (88.5%) of that went to men, in a population in which 79.4% are male. Male otolaryngologists received greater median contributions than did female otolaryngologists (median [interquartile range (IQR)], $211 [$86-$1245] vs $133 [$51-$316]). Median contributions were greater to men than women at assistant and associate professor academic ranks (median [IQR], $168 [$77-$492] vs $114 [$55-$290] and $240 [$87-$1314] vs $166 [$58-$328], respectively). Overall, a greater proportion of men received industry contributions than women (68.0% vs 56.1%,). By subspecialty, men had greater median contribution levels among otologists and rhinologists (median [IQR], $609 [$166-$6015] vs $153 [$56-$336] and $1134 [$286-$5276] vs $425 [$188-$721], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: A greater proportion of male vs female academic otolaryngologists receive contributions from industry. These differences persist after controlling for academic rank and experience. The gender disparities we have identified may be owing to men publishing earlier in their careers, with women often surpassing men later in their academic lives, or as a result of previously described gender disparities in scholarly impact and academic advancement.
Importance: Gender disparities continue to exist in the medical profession, including potential disparities in industry-supported financial contributions. Although there are potential drawbacks to industry relationships, such industry ties have the potential to promote scholarly discourse and increase understanding and accessibility of novel technologies and drugs. Objectives: To evaluate whether gender disparities exist in relationships between pharmaceutical and/or medical device industries and academic otolaryngologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: An analysis of bibliometric data and industry funding of academic otolaryngologists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payments as reported within the CMS Open Payment Database. Methods: Online faculty listings were used to determine academic rank, fellowship training, and gender of full-time faculty otolaryngologists in the 100 civilian training programs in the United States. Industry contributions to these individuals were evaluated using the CMS Open Payment Database, which was created by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in response to increasing public and regulatory interest in industry relationships and aimed to increase the transparency of such relationships. The Scopus database was used to determine bibliometric indices and publication experience (in years) for all academic otolaryngologists. Results: Of 1514 academic otolaryngologists included in this analysis, 1202 (79.4%) were men and 312 (20.6%) were women. In 2014, industry contributed a total of $4.9 million to academic otolaryngologists. $4.3 million (88.5%) of that went to men, in a population in which 79.4% are male. Male otolaryngologists received greater median contributions than did female otolaryngologists (median [interquartile range (IQR)], $211 [$86-$1245] vs $133 [$51-$316]). Median contributions were greater to men than women at assistant and associate professor academic ranks (median [IQR], $168 [$77-$492] vs $114 [$55-$290] and $240 [$87-$1314] vs $166 [$58-$328], respectively). Overall, a greater proportion of men received industry contributions than women (68.0% vs 56.1%,). By subspecialty, men had greater median contribution levels among otologists and rhinologists (median [IQR], $609 [$166-$6015] vs $153 [$56-$336] and $1134 [$286-$5276] vs $425 [$188-$721], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: A greater proportion of male vs female academic otolaryngologists receive contributions from industry. These differences persist after controlling for academic rank and experience. The gender disparities we have identified may be owing to men publishing earlier in their careers, with women often surpassing men later in their academic lives, or as a result of previously described gender disparities in scholarly impact and academic advancement.
Authors: Peter F Svider; Leila J Mady; Qasim Husain; Andrew G Sikora; Michael Setzen; Soly Baredes; Jean Anderson Eloy Journal: Am J Otolaryngol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 1.808
Authors: Peter F Svider; Kevin M Mauro; Saurin Sanghvi; Michael Setzen; Soly Baredes; Jean Anderson Eloy Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Peter F Svider; Zaid A Choudhry; Osamah J Choudhry; Soly Baredes; James K Liu; Jean Anderson Eloy Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Jean Anderson Eloy; Peter Svider; Sujana S Chandrasekhar; Qasim Husain; Kevin M Mauro; Michael Setzen; Soly Baredes Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Jean Anderson Eloy; Peter F Svider; Deepa V Cherla; Lucia Diaz; Olga Kovalerchik; Kevin M Mauro; Soly Baredes; Sujana S Chandrasekhar Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Jennifer Rubin Grandis; William E Gooding; Beth A Zamboni; Marilyn M Wagener; Stephanie D Drenning; Lori Miller; Karen Jo Doyle; Susan E Mackinnon; Robin L Wagner Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-06
Authors: Emma B Holliday; Reshma Jagsi; Lynn D Wilson; Mehee Choi; Charles R Thomas; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Ashley L Miller; Vinay K Rathi; Ciersten A Burks; Elliana Kirsh DeVore; Regan W Bergmark; Stacey T Gray Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Alessandra Storino; Carolina Vigna; John C Polanco-Santana; Ernest Park; Kristen Crowell; Anne Fabrizio; Thomas E Cataldo; Evangelos Messaris Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.453
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