Isabella Menchetti1, Debra Eagles1,2, Dana Ghanem3, Jennifer Leppard1, Karine Fournier4, Warren J Cheung1,5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 2. School of Epidemiology and Public Health University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 4. Health Sciences Library University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada. 5. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Abstract
Background: Growing literature within postgraduate medical education demonstrates that female resident physicians experience gender bias throughout their training and future careers. This scoping review aims to describe the current body of literature on gender differences in emergency medicine (EM) resident assessment. Methods: We conducted a scoping review which adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included research involving resident physicians or fellows in EM (population and context), which focused on the impact of gender on assessments (concept). We searched seven databases from the databases' inception to April 4, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened citations, completed full-text review, and abstracted data. A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Results: A total of 667 unique citations were identified; 10 studies were included, and all were conducted within the United States. Four studies reported differences in EM resident assessments attributable to gender within workplace-based assessments (qualitative comments and quantitative scores) by both attending physicians and nonphysicians. Six studies investigating clinical competency committee scores, procedural scores, and simulation-based assessments did not report any significant differences attributable to gender. Conclusions: This scoping review found that gender bias exists within EM resident assessment most notably at the level of narrative comments typically received via workplace-based assessments. As female EM residents receive higher rates of negative or critical comments and discordant feedback documented on assessment, these findings raise concern about added barriers female EM residents may face while progressing through residency and the impact on their clinical and professional development.
Background: Growing literature within postgraduate medical education demonstrates that female resident physicians experience gender bias throughout their training and future careers. This scoping review aims to describe the current body of literature on gender differences in emergency medicine (EM) resident assessment. Methods: We conducted a scoping review which adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included research involving resident physicians or fellows in EM (population and context), which focused on the impact of gender on assessments (concept). We searched seven databases from the databases' inception to April 4, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened citations, completed full-text review, and abstracted data. A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Results: A total of 667 unique citations were identified; 10 studies were included, and all were conducted within the United States. Four studies reported differences in EM resident assessments attributable to gender within workplace-based assessments (qualitative comments and quantitative scores) by both attending physicians and nonphysicians. Six studies investigating clinical competency committee scores, procedural scores, and simulation-based assessments did not report any significant differences attributable to gender. Conclusions: This scoping review found that gender bias exists within EM resident assessment most notably at the level of narrative comments typically received via workplace-based assessments. As female EM residents receive higher rates of negative or critical comments and discordant feedback documented on assessment, these findings raise concern about added barriers female EM residents may face while progressing through residency and the impact on their clinical and professional development.
Authors: Shelley L Galvin; Anna Beth Parlier; Ellen Martino; Kacey Ryan Scott; Elizabeth Buys Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Suzanne Schut; Lauren A Maggio; Sylvia Heeneman; Jan van Tartwijk; Cees van der Vleuten; Erik Driessen Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2020-10-21