OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to present results related to two questions regarding changes in the sex ratio of American radiologists. Do men and women in radiology have different patterns of subspecialization, postresidency training, board certification, or practice characteristics? Do differences in patterns between the sexes imply that the number of radiologists required in the future will change with a changing sex ratio of radiologists? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 2804 radiologists, radiation oncologists, and nuclear medicine specialists drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The survey achieved a response rate of 69%. Stratification criteria included sex, age, and subspecialty. The survey questions included age, sex, subspecialty, training status, board certification, type of practice, principal work activity, source of income, hours worked, and amount of time away from the practice. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, ordinary least squares regression, and logit analysis. Weighting assured that results represent all radiologists. RESULTS: Only 13% of active radiologists who have finished training are women. The percentage varies with age; 6% of radiologists 45 years old or older; 22% of those 35-44 years old, and 23% of those younger than 35 years old were women. Differences in the sex ratio were not associated with differences in board certification or postresidency fellowships, but subspecialization differed by sex. Women were more likely than men to be salaried, to work part-time, to be engaged in teaching, and to work in an office rather than in a hospital. Differences in the sex ratio had little impact on estimates of the number of radiologists that will be needed in the future. CONCLUSION: Female radiologists have subspecialization and practice characteristics different from those of male radiologists. The increasing percentage of women in the profession will have little effect on the number of radiologists and radiation oncologists needed.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to present results related to two questions regarding changes in the sex ratio of American radiologists. Do men and women in radiology have different patterns of subspecialization, postresidency training, board certification, or practice characteristics? Do differences in patterns between the sexes imply that the number of radiologists required in the future will change with a changing sex ratio of radiologists? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 2804 radiologists, radiation oncologists, and nuclear medicine specialists drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The survey achieved a response rate of 69%. Stratification criteria included sex, age, and subspecialty. The survey questions included age, sex, subspecialty, training status, board certification, type of practice, principal work activity, source of income, hours worked, and amount of time away from the practice. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, ordinary least squares regression, and logit analysis. Weighting assured that results represent all radiologists. RESULTS: Only 13% of active radiologists who have finished training are women. The percentage varies with age; 6% of radiologists 45 years old or older; 22% of those 35-44 years old, and 23% of those younger than 35 years old were women. Differences in the sex ratio were not associated with differences in board certification or postresidency fellowships, but subspecialization differed by sex. Women were more likely than men to be salaried, to work part-time, to be engaged in teaching, and to work in an office rather than in a hospital. Differences in the sex ratio had little impact on estimates of the number of radiologists that will be needed in the future. CONCLUSION: Female radiologists have subspecialization and practice characteristics different from those of male radiologists. The increasing percentage of women in the profession will have little effect on the number of radiologists and radiation oncologists needed.
Authors: Amy Berrington de González; Estelle Ntowe; Cari M Kitahara; Ethel Gilbert; Donald L Miller; Ruth A Kleinerman; Martha S Linet Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Giulia Fichera; Isolde Martina Busch; Michela Rimondini; Raffaella Motta; Chiara Giraudo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390