Diversity in Medicine

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.

Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.

He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”

Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.

Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.

Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.

Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.

One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.

“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,

It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.

Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.

But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.

It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.

It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.

Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.

“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.

Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.

[email protected]

Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.

Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.

He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”

Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.

Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.

Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.

Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.

One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.

“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,

It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.

Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.

But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.

It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.

It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.

Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.

“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.

Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.

[email protected]

Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.

Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.

He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”

Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.

Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.

Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.

Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.

One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.

“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,

It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.

Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.

But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.

It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.

It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.

Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.

“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.

Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.

[email protected]

A workplace environment conducive to success includes equal access to resources and opportunities, work-life integration, freedom from gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and supportive leadership. With focused leadership that is accountable for actionable interventions through measurable outcomes, it is possible to create an equitable, safe, and dignified workplace for all ObGyns.

Recently, obstetrics and gynecology has become the only surgical specialty in which a majority of practitioners are women. Since the 1990s, women in ObGyn have composed the majority of trainees, and 2012 marked the first year that more than half of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellows in practice were women.¹

Despite the large proportion of women within the specialty, ongoing gender-based inequities continue. Many of these inequities are rooted in our pervasive societal views of behavioral norms based on biologic or perceived sex, otherwise known as “gender,” roles.² The cultural gender role for men embodies characteristics that are bold, competitive, decisive, analytical; qualities for women include modesty, nurturing, and accommodating in interactions with others. Such male-typed traits and behaviors are termed “agentic” because they involve human agency, whereas female-typed traits and behaviors are termed “communal.”³

Gender biases remain widespread, even among health care providers.⁴ When gender roles are applied to medical specialties, there is an assumption that women tend toward “communal” specialties, such as pediatrics or family practice, whereas men are better suited for technical or procedural specialties.⁵ ObGyn is an outlier in this schema because its procedural and surgical aspects would characterize the specialty as “agentic,” yet the majority of ObGyn trainees and physicians are women.

Biases related to gender impact many aspects of practice for the ObGyn, including:

• surgical education and training
• the gender wage gap
• interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment
• advancement and promotion.

Surgical education and training

The message that desirable characteristics for leadership and autonomy are aligned with masculinity is enforced early in medical culture, and it supports the ubiquity of deep-seated stereotypes about gender roles in medicine. For example, the language used for letters of recommendation for women applying to residency and fellowship highlight communal language (nurturing, warm), whereas those for men more typically use agentic terms (decisive, strong, future leader).⁶ During ObGyn surgical training, women residents receive more negative evaluations than men from nurses throughout training, and they report spending more effort to nurture these relationships, including changing communication in order to engage assistance from nurses.⁷

Similarly, women trainees receive harsher and more contradictory feedback from attending physicians.⁸ For example, a woman resident may be criticized for failing to develop independence and execute complete plans for patient care; later, she might be labeled as “rogue” and told that she should engage with and seek input from supervising faculty when independently executing a treatment plan.

Even when attempting to apply feedback in the operating room, women trainees are afforded less surgical autonomy than men trainees.⁹ These factors contribute to lower surgical confidence in women trainees despite their having the same technical skills as men, as measured by the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery skills exam.¹⁰

Continue to: The gender wage gap...

The gender wage gap

The mean salary for women ObGyns remains lower than that for men at every academic rank, with the differences ranging from $54,700 at the assistant professor rank to $183,200 for the department chair position.¹¹ Notably, the pay discrepancy persists after adjustments are made for common salary-influencing metrics, such as experience, practice construct, and academic productivity.¹² The gender salary gap is further identified for women subspecialists, as women reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and gynecologic oncologists earn $67,000 and $120,000 less, respectively, than men colleagues.^13,14

While the gender wage gap often is attributed to women’s desire to work part time, similar rates of graduating women and men medical students in 2018 ranked schedule flexibility as important, suggesting that work-life balance is related to an individual’s generation rather than gender.¹¹

Parenting status specifically adversely affects women physicians, with an ascribed “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus” phenomenon: women physicians who became parents lost an additional 6% salary, whereas men physicians saw a salary increase of 4% with parenthood.¹⁵

Most worrisome for the specialty is evidence of declining wages for ObGyns relative to other fields. “Occupational segregation”¹⁶ refers to the pronounced negative effect on earnings as more women enter a given field, which has been described in other professions.¹⁷ Overall, ObGyn salaries are the lowest among surgical specialties¹⁸ and show evidence of decline corresponding to the increasing numbers of women in the field.¹⁶

Interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment

In the workplace, women in ObGyn face more interpersonal relationship friction than men. Practicing women ObGyns report differing treatment by nurses as compared to men,¹⁹ noting that additional time and effort are required to nurture professional relationships. Additionally, nurses and trainees²⁰ evaluate practicing women ObGyns more harshly than they evaluate men. Further, women gynecologic surgeons experience gender bias from patients, as patients endorse a preference to have a woman gynecologist but prefer a man gynecologic surgeon.²¹

In addition to gender bias, the experience of gender harassment, including sexual harassment, is common, as two-thirds of women gynecologists report workplace harassment, 90% of which is attributed to gender.²² This rate is 3 times higher than that for men, with a senior colleague in a position of power within the same organization reported to be the harasser to women in 91% of occurrences.

Advancement and promotion

Within academia, women faculty face specific career-limiting barriers related to gender. Rates of academic promotion and leadership opportunities remain lower for women than for men faculty. Although there has been more women representation in ObGyn over the past 20 years, the number of women serving as department chairs, cancer center directors, editors-in-chief, or on a board of directors remains lower than what would be expected by representation ratios.²³ (Representation ratios were calculated as the proportion of ObGyn department-based leadership roles held by women in 2019 divided by the proportion of women ObGyn residents in 1990; representation ratios <1.0 indicate underrepresentation of women). This lag in attainment of leadership roles is compounded by the difficulties women faculty experience in finding mentorship and sponsorship,²⁴ which are known benefits to career advancement.

Having fewer women hold leadership roles also negatively influences those in training. For example, a survey of emergency medicine and ObGyn residents identified an implicit gender bias that men and women residents favored men for leadership roles.²⁵ This difference, however, was not significant when division chiefs and department chairs were women, which suggests that visibility of women leaders positively influences the stereotype perception of men and women trainees.⁴

Continue to: Blueprint for change...

While the issues surrounding gender bias are widespread, solutions exist to create gender equity within ObGyn. Efforts to change individual behavior and organizational culture should start with an understanding of the current environment.

Multiple studies have promoted the concept of “culture change,”^26,27 which parallels a standard change process. A critical aspect of change is that individuals and organizations maintain the status quo until something prompts a desire to achieve a different way of being. As data regarding the breadth and impact of gender bias emerge and awareness is raised, there is recognition that the status quo is not achieving the goals of the department or institution. This may occur through the result of loss of physician talent, reduced access for vulnerable patient populations, or lower financial productivity.

Once change is considered, it must deliberately be pursued through a specific process. The first actionable step is to assess the existing state and then identify prior barriers to and current opportunities for success. A validated instrument that has been applied for this purpose is the Diversity Engagement Survey, a 22-item questionnaire that assesses 8 domains of organizational inclusion on a 5-point Likert scale (see TABLE).²⁸ This tool not only provides a measure of institutional culture but also obtains characteristics of the respondents so that it additionally assesses how engaged specific groups are within the organization. Once baseline data are obtained, an action plan can be formulated and enacted. This cycle of assessment, system influences, plan, and act should be continued until the desired changes are achieved.

It is critically important to identify objective, measurable outcomes to assure that the interventions are moving the culture toward enhanced gender equity. As the ideal state is achieved, development of practices and enforceable policies help to ensure the longevity of cultural changes. Furthermore, periodic re-evaluation of the existing organizational culture will confirm the maintenance of gender equity objectives.

Solutions toward gender equity

Gender inequity may arise from societal gender roles, but it is incumbent on health care organizations to create an environment free from gender bias and gender harassment. An imperative first step is to identify the occurrence of gender discrimination.

The HITS (Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with harm, or Screamed at) screening tool has been used effectively with surgical residents to identify the prevalence of and most common types of abuse.²⁹ This instrument could be adapted and administered to ObGyns in practice or in training. These data should inform the need for system-level antisexist training as well as enforcement of zero-tolerance policies.

Organizations have the ability to create a salary-only compensation model for physicians within the same specialty regardless of academic rank or academic productivity, which has been demonstrated to eliminate gender pay disparity.³⁰ Additional measures to achieve gender equity involve antisexist hiring processes³¹ and transparency in metrics for job performance, salary, and promotion.³²

While health care organizations are obliged to construct a gender-equitable culture, efforts can be made on the individual level. Implicit bias is ascribed to the unconscious attitudes and stereotypes people conclude about groups. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a validated instrument that provides the respondent with information about one’s own implicit biases. By uncovering gender bias “blind spots,” an individual can work to consciously overcome these stereotypes. Extending from the mental reframing required for overturning implicit biases, individuals can learn to identify and intervene in real-world situations. This concept of “being an upstander” denotes stepping in and standing up when an inappropriate situation arises³³ (see “Case example: Being an upstander”). The targeted individual may not have the ability or safety to navigate through a confrontation, but an upstander might be able to assist the target with empowerment, verbalization of needs, and support.

Lastly, mentorship and sponsorship are critical factors for professional development and career advancement. Bidirectional mentorship identifies benefit for the mentee and the mentor whereby the junior faculty obtain career development and support and the senior faculty may learn new teaching or communication skills.³⁴

A final word

As recognized advocates for women’s health, we must intentionally move toward a workplace that is equitable, safe, and dignified for all ObGyns. Ensuring gender equity within obstetrics and gynecology is everyone’s responsibility. ●

A workplace environment conducive to success includes equal access to resources and opportunities, work-life integration, freedom from gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and supportive leadership. With focused leadership that is accountable for actionable interventions through measurable outcomes, it is possible to create an equitable, safe, and dignified workplace for all ObGyns.

Recently, obstetrics and gynecology has become the only surgical specialty in which a majority of practitioners are women. Since the 1990s, women in ObGyn have composed the majority of trainees, and 2012 marked the first year that more than half of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellows in practice were women.¹

Despite the large proportion of women within the specialty, ongoing gender-based inequities continue. Many of these inequities are rooted in our pervasive societal views of behavioral norms based on biologic or perceived sex, otherwise known as “gender,” roles.² The cultural gender role for men embodies characteristics that are bold, competitive, decisive, analytical; qualities for women include modesty, nurturing, and accommodating in interactions with others. Such male-typed traits and behaviors are termed “agentic” because they involve human agency, whereas female-typed traits and behaviors are termed “communal.”³

Gender biases remain widespread, even among health care providers.⁴ When gender roles are applied to medical specialties, there is an assumption that women tend toward “communal” specialties, such as pediatrics or family practice, whereas men are better suited for technical or procedural specialties.⁵ ObGyn is an outlier in this schema because its procedural and surgical aspects would characterize the specialty as “agentic,” yet the majority of ObGyn trainees and physicians are women.

Biases related to gender impact many aspects of practice for the ObGyn, including:

• surgical education and training
• the gender wage gap
• interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment
• advancement and promotion.

Surgical education and training

The message that desirable characteristics for leadership and autonomy are aligned with masculinity is enforced early in medical culture, and it supports the ubiquity of deep-seated stereotypes about gender roles in medicine. For example, the language used for letters of recommendation for women applying to residency and fellowship highlight communal language (nurturing, warm), whereas those for men more typically use agentic terms (decisive, strong, future leader).⁶ During ObGyn surgical training, women residents receive more negative evaluations than men from nurses throughout training, and they report spending more effort to nurture these relationships, including changing communication in order to engage assistance from nurses.⁷

Similarly, women trainees receive harsher and more contradictory feedback from attending physicians.⁸ For example, a woman resident may be criticized for failing to develop independence and execute complete plans for patient care; later, she might be labeled as “rogue” and told that she should engage with and seek input from supervising faculty when independently executing a treatment plan.

Even when attempting to apply feedback in the operating room, women trainees are afforded less surgical autonomy than men trainees.⁹ These factors contribute to lower surgical confidence in women trainees despite their having the same technical skills as men, as measured by the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery skills exam.¹⁰

Continue to: The gender wage gap...

The gender wage gap

The mean salary for women ObGyns remains lower than that for men at every academic rank, with the differences ranging from $54,700 at the assistant professor rank to $183,200 for the department chair position.¹¹ Notably, the pay discrepancy persists after adjustments are made for common salary-influencing metrics, such as experience, practice construct, and academic productivity.¹² The gender salary gap is further identified for women subspecialists, as women reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and gynecologic oncologists earn $67,000 and $120,000 less, respectively, than men colleagues.^13,14

While the gender wage gap often is attributed to women’s desire to work part time, similar rates of graduating women and men medical students in 2018 ranked schedule flexibility as important, suggesting that work-life balance is related to an individual’s generation rather than gender.¹¹

Parenting status specifically adversely affects women physicians, with an ascribed “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus” phenomenon: women physicians who became parents lost an additional 6% salary, whereas men physicians saw a salary increase of 4% with parenthood.¹⁵

Most worrisome for the specialty is evidence of declining wages for ObGyns relative to other fields. “Occupational segregation”¹⁶ refers to the pronounced negative effect on earnings as more women enter a given field, which has been described in other professions.¹⁷ Overall, ObGyn salaries are the lowest among surgical specialties¹⁸ and show evidence of decline corresponding to the increasing numbers of women in the field.¹⁶

Interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment

In the workplace, women in ObGyn face more interpersonal relationship friction than men. Practicing women ObGyns report differing treatment by nurses as compared to men,¹⁹ noting that additional time and effort are required to nurture professional relationships. Additionally, nurses and trainees²⁰ evaluate practicing women ObGyns more harshly than they evaluate men. Further, women gynecologic surgeons experience gender bias from patients, as patients endorse a preference to have a woman gynecologist but prefer a man gynecologic surgeon.²¹

In addition to gender bias, the experience of gender harassment, including sexual harassment, is common, as two-thirds of women gynecologists report workplace harassment, 90% of which is attributed to gender.²² This rate is 3 times higher than that for men, with a senior colleague in a position of power within the same organization reported to be the harasser to women in 91% of occurrences.

Advancement and promotion

Within academia, women faculty face specific career-limiting barriers related to gender. Rates of academic promotion and leadership opportunities remain lower for women than for men faculty. Although there has been more women representation in ObGyn over the past 20 years, the number of women serving as department chairs, cancer center directors, editors-in-chief, or on a board of directors remains lower than what would be expected by representation ratios.²³ (Representation ratios were calculated as the proportion of ObGyn department-based leadership roles held by women in 2019 divided by the proportion of women ObGyn residents in 1990; representation ratios <1.0 indicate underrepresentation of women). This lag in attainment of leadership roles is compounded by the difficulties women faculty experience in finding mentorship and sponsorship,²⁴ which are known benefits to career advancement.

Having fewer women hold leadership roles also negatively influences those in training. For example, a survey of emergency medicine and ObGyn residents identified an implicit gender bias that men and women residents favored men for leadership roles.²⁵ This difference, however, was not significant when division chiefs and department chairs were women, which suggests that visibility of women leaders positively influences the stereotype perception of men and women trainees.⁴

Continue to: Blueprint for change...

While the issues surrounding gender bias are widespread, solutions exist to create gender equity within ObGyn. Efforts to change individual behavior and organizational culture should start with an understanding of the current environment.

Multiple studies have promoted the concept of “culture change,”^26,27 which parallels a standard change process. A critical aspect of change is that individuals and organizations maintain the status quo until something prompts a desire to achieve a different way of being. As data regarding the breadth and impact of gender bias emerge and awareness is raised, there is recognition that the status quo is not achieving the goals of the department or institution. This may occur through the result of loss of physician talent, reduced access for vulnerable patient populations, or lower financial productivity.

Once change is considered, it must deliberately be pursued through a specific process. The first actionable step is to assess the existing state and then identify prior barriers to and current opportunities for success. A validated instrument that has been applied for this purpose is the Diversity Engagement Survey, a 22-item questionnaire that assesses 8 domains of organizational inclusion on a 5-point Likert scale (see TABLE).²⁸ This tool not only provides a measure of institutional culture but also obtains characteristics of the respondents so that it additionally assesses how engaged specific groups are within the organization. Once baseline data are obtained, an action plan can be formulated and enacted. This cycle of assessment, system influences, plan, and act should be continued until the desired changes are achieved.

It is critically important to identify objective, measurable outcomes to assure that the interventions are moving the culture toward enhanced gender equity. As the ideal state is achieved, development of practices and enforceable policies help to ensure the longevity of cultural changes. Furthermore, periodic re-evaluation of the existing organizational culture will confirm the maintenance of gender equity objectives.

Solutions toward gender equity

Gender inequity may arise from societal gender roles, but it is incumbent on health care organizations to create an environment free from gender bias and gender harassment. An imperative first step is to identify the occurrence of gender discrimination.

The HITS (Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with harm, or Screamed at) screening tool has been used effectively with surgical residents to identify the prevalence of and most common types of abuse.²⁹ This instrument could be adapted and administered to ObGyns in practice or in training. These data should inform the need for system-level antisexist training as well as enforcement of zero-tolerance policies.

Organizations have the ability to create a salary-only compensation model for physicians within the same specialty regardless of academic rank or academic productivity, which has been demonstrated to eliminate gender pay disparity.³⁰ Additional measures to achieve gender equity involve antisexist hiring processes³¹ and transparency in metrics for job performance, salary, and promotion.³²

While health care organizations are obliged to construct a gender-equitable culture, efforts can be made on the individual level. Implicit bias is ascribed to the unconscious attitudes and stereotypes people conclude about groups. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a validated instrument that provides the respondent with information about one’s own implicit biases. By uncovering gender bias “blind spots,” an individual can work to consciously overcome these stereotypes. Extending from the mental reframing required for overturning implicit biases, individuals can learn to identify and intervene in real-world situations. This concept of “being an upstander” denotes stepping in and standing up when an inappropriate situation arises³³ (see “Case example: Being an upstander”). The targeted individual may not have the ability or safety to navigate through a confrontation, but an upstander might be able to assist the target with empowerment, verbalization of needs, and support.

Lastly, mentorship and sponsorship are critical factors for professional development and career advancement. Bidirectional mentorship identifies benefit for the mentee and the mentor whereby the junior faculty obtain career development and support and the senior faculty may learn new teaching or communication skills.³⁴

A final word

As recognized advocates for women’s health, we must intentionally move toward a workplace that is equitable, safe, and dignified for all ObGyns. Ensuring gender equity within obstetrics and gynecology is everyone’s responsibility. ●

A workplace environment conducive to success includes equal access to resources and opportunities, work-life integration, freedom from gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and supportive leadership. With focused leadership that is accountable for actionable interventions through measurable outcomes, it is possible to create an equitable, safe, and dignified workplace for all ObGyns.

Recently, obstetrics and gynecology has become the only surgical specialty in which a majority of practitioners are women. Since the 1990s, women in ObGyn have composed the majority of trainees, and 2012 marked the first year that more than half of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellows in practice were women.¹

Despite the large proportion of women within the specialty, ongoing gender-based inequities continue. Many of these inequities are rooted in our pervasive societal views of behavioral norms based on biologic or perceived sex, otherwise known as “gender,” roles.² The cultural gender role for men embodies characteristics that are bold, competitive, decisive, analytical; qualities for women include modesty, nurturing, and accommodating in interactions with others. Such male-typed traits and behaviors are termed “agentic” because they involve human agency, whereas female-typed traits and behaviors are termed “communal.”³

Gender biases remain widespread, even among health care providers.⁴ When gender roles are applied to medical specialties, there is an assumption that women tend toward “communal” specialties, such as pediatrics or family practice, whereas men are better suited for technical or procedural specialties.⁵ ObGyn is an outlier in this schema because its procedural and surgical aspects would characterize the specialty as “agentic,” yet the majority of ObGyn trainees and physicians are women.

Biases related to gender impact many aspects of practice for the ObGyn, including:

• surgical education and training
• the gender wage gap
• interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment
• advancement and promotion.

Surgical education and training

The message that desirable characteristics for leadership and autonomy are aligned with masculinity is enforced early in medical culture, and it supports the ubiquity of deep-seated stereotypes about gender roles in medicine. For example, the language used for letters of recommendation for women applying to residency and fellowship highlight communal language (nurturing, warm), whereas those for men more typically use agentic terms (decisive, strong, future leader).⁶ During ObGyn surgical training, women residents receive more negative evaluations than men from nurses throughout training, and they report spending more effort to nurture these relationships, including changing communication in order to engage assistance from nurses.⁷

Similarly, women trainees receive harsher and more contradictory feedback from attending physicians.⁸ For example, a woman resident may be criticized for failing to develop independence and execute complete plans for patient care; later, she might be labeled as “rogue” and told that she should engage with and seek input from supervising faculty when independently executing a treatment plan.

Even when attempting to apply feedback in the operating room, women trainees are afforded less surgical autonomy than men trainees.⁹ These factors contribute to lower surgical confidence in women trainees despite their having the same technical skills as men, as measured by the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery skills exam.¹⁰

Continue to: The gender wage gap...

The gender wage gap

The mean salary for women ObGyns remains lower than that for men at every academic rank, with the differences ranging from $54,700 at the assistant professor rank to $183,200 for the department chair position.¹¹ Notably, the pay discrepancy persists after adjustments are made for common salary-influencing metrics, such as experience, practice construct, and academic productivity.¹² The gender salary gap is further identified for women subspecialists, as women reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and gynecologic oncologists earn $67,000 and $120,000 less, respectively, than men colleagues.^13,14

While the gender wage gap often is attributed to women’s desire to work part time, similar rates of graduating women and men medical students in 2018 ranked schedule flexibility as important, suggesting that work-life balance is related to an individual’s generation rather than gender.¹¹

Parenting status specifically adversely affects women physicians, with an ascribed “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus” phenomenon: women physicians who became parents lost an additional 6% salary, whereas men physicians saw a salary increase of 4% with parenthood.¹⁵

Most worrisome for the specialty is evidence of declining wages for ObGyns relative to other fields. “Occupational segregation”¹⁶ refers to the pronounced negative effect on earnings as more women enter a given field, which has been described in other professions.¹⁷ Overall, ObGyn salaries are the lowest among surgical specialties¹⁸ and show evidence of decline corresponding to the increasing numbers of women in the field.¹⁶

Interpersonal interactions and sexual harassment

In the workplace, women in ObGyn face more interpersonal relationship friction than men. Practicing women ObGyns report differing treatment by nurses as compared to men,¹⁹ noting that additional time and effort are required to nurture professional relationships. Additionally, nurses and trainees²⁰ evaluate practicing women ObGyns more harshly than they evaluate men. Further, women gynecologic surgeons experience gender bias from patients, as patients endorse a preference to have a woman gynecologist but prefer a man gynecologic surgeon.²¹

In addition to gender bias, the experience of gender harassment, including sexual harassment, is common, as two-thirds of women gynecologists report workplace harassment, 90% of which is attributed to gender.²² This rate is 3 times higher than that for men, with a senior colleague in a position of power within the same organization reported to be the harasser to women in 91% of occurrences.

Advancement and promotion

Within academia, women faculty face specific career-limiting barriers related to gender. Rates of academic promotion and leadership opportunities remain lower for women than for men faculty. Although there has been more women representation in ObGyn over the past 20 years, the number of women serving as department chairs, cancer center directors, editors-in-chief, or on a board of directors remains lower than what would be expected by representation ratios.²³ (Representation ratios were calculated as the proportion of ObGyn department-based leadership roles held by women in 2019 divided by the proportion of women ObGyn residents in 1990; representation ratios <1.0 indicate underrepresentation of women). This lag in attainment of leadership roles is compounded by the difficulties women faculty experience in finding mentorship and sponsorship,²⁴ which are known benefits to career advancement.

Having fewer women hold leadership roles also negatively influences those in training. For example, a survey of emergency medicine and ObGyn residents identified an implicit gender bias that men and women residents favored men for leadership roles.²⁵ This difference, however, was not significant when division chiefs and department chairs were women, which suggests that visibility of women leaders positively influences the stereotype perception of men and women trainees.⁴

Continue to: Blueprint for change...

While the issues surrounding gender bias are widespread, solutions exist to create gender equity within ObGyn. Efforts to change individual behavior and organizational culture should start with an understanding of the current environment.

Multiple studies have promoted the concept of “culture change,”^26,27 which parallels a standard change process. A critical aspect of change is that individuals and organizations maintain the status quo until something prompts a desire to achieve a different way of being. As data regarding the breadth and impact of gender bias emerge and awareness is raised, there is recognition that the status quo is not achieving the goals of the department or institution. This may occur through the result of loss of physician talent, reduced access for vulnerable patient populations, or lower financial productivity.

Once change is considered, it must deliberately be pursued through a specific process. The first actionable step is to assess the existing state and then identify prior barriers to and current opportunities for success. A validated instrument that has been applied for this purpose is the Diversity Engagement Survey, a 22-item questionnaire that assesses 8 domains of organizational inclusion on a 5-point Likert scale (see TABLE).²⁸ This tool not only provides a measure of institutional culture but also obtains characteristics of the respondents so that it additionally assesses how engaged specific groups are within the organization. Once baseline data are obtained, an action plan can be formulated and enacted. This cycle of assessment, system influences, plan, and act should be continued until the desired changes are achieved.

It is critically important to identify objective, measurable outcomes to assure that the interventions are moving the culture toward enhanced gender equity. As the ideal state is achieved, development of practices and enforceable policies help to ensure the longevity of cultural changes. Furthermore, periodic re-evaluation of the existing organizational culture will confirm the maintenance of gender equity objectives.

Solutions toward gender equity

Gender inequity may arise from societal gender roles, but it is incumbent on health care organizations to create an environment free from gender bias and gender harassment. An imperative first step is to identify the occurrence of gender discrimination.

The HITS (Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with harm, or Screamed at) screening tool has been used effectively with surgical residents to identify the prevalence of and most common types of abuse.²⁹ This instrument could be adapted and administered to ObGyns in practice or in training. These data should inform the need for system-level antisexist training as well as enforcement of zero-tolerance policies.

Organizations have the ability to create a salary-only compensation model for physicians within the same specialty regardless of academic rank or academic productivity, which has been demonstrated to eliminate gender pay disparity.³⁰ Additional measures to achieve gender equity involve antisexist hiring processes³¹ and transparency in metrics for job performance, salary, and promotion.³²

While health care organizations are obliged to construct a gender-equitable culture, efforts can be made on the individual level. Implicit bias is ascribed to the unconscious attitudes and stereotypes people conclude about groups. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a validated instrument that provides the respondent with information about one’s own implicit biases. By uncovering gender bias “blind spots,” an individual can work to consciously overcome these stereotypes. Extending from the mental reframing required for overturning implicit biases, individuals can learn to identify and intervene in real-world situations. This concept of “being an upstander” denotes stepping in and standing up when an inappropriate situation arises³³ (see “Case example: Being an upstander”). The targeted individual may not have the ability or safety to navigate through a confrontation, but an upstander might be able to assist the target with empowerment, verbalization of needs, and support.

Lastly, mentorship and sponsorship are critical factors for professional development and career advancement. Bidirectional mentorship identifies benefit for the mentee and the mentor whereby the junior faculty obtain career development and support and the senior faculty may learn new teaching or communication skills.³⁴

A final word

As recognized advocates for women’s health, we must intentionally move toward a workplace that is equitable, safe, and dignified for all ObGyns. Ensuring gender equity within obstetrics and gynecology is everyone’s responsibility. ●

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

The Diagnosis: Pemphigus Foliaceous

Laboratory workup including a complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, Sjögren syndrome A and B antibodies, hepatitis profile, rapid plasma reagin, HIV screen, aldolase, anti–Jo-1, T-Spot TB test (Quest Diagnostics), and tissue cultures was unremarkable. Two 4-mm punch biopsies were obtained from the left cheek and upper back, both of which demonstrated intragranular acantholysis suggestive of pemphigus foliaceous (Figure 1A). A subsequent punch biopsy from the right lower abdomen sent for direct immunofluorescence demonstrated netlike positivity of IgG and C3 in the upper epidermis (Figure 1B), and serum sent for indirect immunofluorescence demonstrated intercellular IgG antibodies to desmoglein (Dsg) 1 on monkey esophagus and positive Dsg-1 antibodies on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, confirming the diagnosis.

The patient was started on a 60-mg prednisone taper as well as dapsone 50 mg daily; the dapsone was titrated up to 100 mg daily. After tapering down to 10 mg daily of prednisone over 2 months and continuing dapsone with minimal improvement, he was given 2 infusions of rituximab 1000 mg 2 weeks apart. The scalp plaque was dramatically improved at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2), with partial improvement of the cheek plaques (Figure 3). Dapsone was increased to 150 mg daily, and he was encouraged to use triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily, which led to further improvement.

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease that most commonly occurs in middle-aged adults. It generally is less common than pemphigus vulgaris, except in Finland, Tunisia, and Brazil, where there is an endemic condition with an identical clinical and histological presentation known as fogo selvagem.¹

The pathogenesis of pemphigus foliaceous is characterized by IgG autoantibodies against Dsg-1, a transmembrane glycoprotein involved in the cellular adhesion of keratinocytes, which is preferentially expressed in the superficial epidermis.^2-7 Dysfunction of Dsg-1 results in the separation of superficial epidermal cells, resulting in intraepidermal blisters.^2,7 In contrast to pemphigus vulgaris, there typically is a lack of oral mucosal involvement due to compensation by Dsg-3 in the mucosa.⁴ Potential triggers for pemphigus foliaceous include exposure to UV radiation; radiotherapy; pregnancy; physiologic stress; and drugs, most commonly captopril, penicillamine, and thiols.⁸

Pemphigus foliaceous lesions clinically appear as eroded and crusted lesions on an erythematous base, commonly in a seborrheic distribution on the face, scalp, and trunk with sparing of the oral mucosa,^2,6 but lesions can progress to a widespread and more severe exfoliative dermatitis.⁷ Lesions also can appear as psoriasiform plaques and often are initially misdiagnosed as psoriasis, particularly in patients with skin of color.^9,10

Diagnosis of pemphigus foliaceous typically is made using a combination of histology as well as both direct and indirect immunofluorescence. Histologically, pemphigus foliaceus presents with subcorneal acantholysis, which is most prominent in the granular layer and occasionally the presence of neutrophils and eosinophils in the blister cavity.⁷ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates netlike intercellular IgG and C3 in the upper portion of the epidermis.¹¹ Indirect immunofluorescence can help detect circulating IgG antibodies to Dsg-1, with guinea pig esophagus being the ideal substrate.^11,12

First-line treatment of pemphigus foliaceus consists of systemic glucocorticoid therapy, often administered with azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.^2,6,13 Although first-line treatment is effective in 60% to 80% of patients,² relapsing cases can be treated with cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulin, immunoadsorption, plasmapheresis, or rituximab.²

Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting CD20⁺ B cells, leading to decreased antibody production, which has been shown to be effective in treating severe and refractory cases of pemphigus foliaceus.^6,13Rituximab with short-course prednisone has been found to be more effective in achieving complete remission at 24 months than prednisone alone.¹⁴ In patients with contraindications to systemic glucocorticoid therapy, rituximab has been shown as an effective first-line therapy.¹⁵ One-quarter of patients treated with rituximab relapsed within 2 years of treatment⁶ (average time to relapse, 6–26 months).¹⁶ High-dose rituximab regimens, along with a higher number of rituximab treatment cycles, have been shown to prolong time to relapse.⁶ Further, higher baseline levels of Dsg-1 antibody have been correlated to earlier relapse and can be used following rituximab therapy to monitor disease progression.^6,16

The differential diagnosis for pemphigus foliaceous includes disseminated blastomycosis, hypertrophic lupus erythematosus, sebopsoriasis, and secondary syphilis. Disseminated blastomycosis presents with cutaneous manifestations such as nodules, papules, or pustules evolving over weeks to months into ulcers with subsequent scarring.¹⁷ Hypertrophic lupus erythematosus presents with papules and nodules with associated keratotic scaling on the face, palms, and extensor surfaces of the limbs.¹⁸ Sebopsoriasis is characterized by well-defined lesions with an overlying scale distributed on the scalp, face, and chest.¹⁹ Secondary syphilis presents as early hyperpigmented macules transitioning to acral papulosquamous lesions involving the palms and soles.²⁰

The Diagnosis: Pemphigus Foliaceous

Laboratory workup including a complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, Sjögren syndrome A and B antibodies, hepatitis profile, rapid plasma reagin, HIV screen, aldolase, anti–Jo-1, T-Spot TB test (Quest Diagnostics), and tissue cultures was unremarkable. Two 4-mm punch biopsies were obtained from the left cheek and upper back, both of which demonstrated intragranular acantholysis suggestive of pemphigus foliaceous (Figure 1A). A subsequent punch biopsy from the right lower abdomen sent for direct immunofluorescence demonstrated netlike positivity of IgG and C3 in the upper epidermis (Figure 1B), and serum sent for indirect immunofluorescence demonstrated intercellular IgG antibodies to desmoglein (Dsg) 1 on monkey esophagus and positive Dsg-1 antibodies on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, confirming the diagnosis.

The patient was started on a 60-mg prednisone taper as well as dapsone 50 mg daily; the dapsone was titrated up to 100 mg daily. After tapering down to 10 mg daily of prednisone over 2 months and continuing dapsone with minimal improvement, he was given 2 infusions of rituximab 1000 mg 2 weeks apart. The scalp plaque was dramatically improved at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2), with partial improvement of the cheek plaques (Figure 3). Dapsone was increased to 150 mg daily, and he was encouraged to use triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily, which led to further improvement.

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease that most commonly occurs in middle-aged adults. It generally is less common than pemphigus vulgaris, except in Finland, Tunisia, and Brazil, where there is an endemic condition with an identical clinical and histological presentation known as fogo selvagem.¹

The pathogenesis of pemphigus foliaceous is characterized by IgG autoantibodies against Dsg-1, a transmembrane glycoprotein involved in the cellular adhesion of keratinocytes, which is preferentially expressed in the superficial epidermis.^2-7 Dysfunction of Dsg-1 results in the separation of superficial epidermal cells, resulting in intraepidermal blisters.^2,7 In contrast to pemphigus vulgaris, there typically is a lack of oral mucosal involvement due to compensation by Dsg-3 in the mucosa.⁴ Potential triggers for pemphigus foliaceous include exposure to UV radiation; radiotherapy; pregnancy; physiologic stress; and drugs, most commonly captopril, penicillamine, and thiols.⁸

Pemphigus foliaceous lesions clinically appear as eroded and crusted lesions on an erythematous base, commonly in a seborrheic distribution on the face, scalp, and trunk with sparing of the oral mucosa,^2,6 but lesions can progress to a widespread and more severe exfoliative dermatitis.⁷ Lesions also can appear as psoriasiform plaques and often are initially misdiagnosed as psoriasis, particularly in patients with skin of color.^9,10

Diagnosis of pemphigus foliaceous typically is made using a combination of histology as well as both direct and indirect immunofluorescence. Histologically, pemphigus foliaceus presents with subcorneal acantholysis, which is most prominent in the granular layer and occasionally the presence of neutrophils and eosinophils in the blister cavity.⁷ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates netlike intercellular IgG and C3 in the upper portion of the epidermis.¹¹ Indirect immunofluorescence can help detect circulating IgG antibodies to Dsg-1, with guinea pig esophagus being the ideal substrate.^11,12

First-line treatment of pemphigus foliaceus consists of systemic glucocorticoid therapy, often administered with azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.^2,6,13 Although first-line treatment is effective in 60% to 80% of patients,² relapsing cases can be treated with cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulin, immunoadsorption, plasmapheresis, or rituximab.²

Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting CD20⁺ B cells, leading to decreased antibody production, which has been shown to be effective in treating severe and refractory cases of pemphigus foliaceus.^6,13Rituximab with short-course prednisone has been found to be more effective in achieving complete remission at 24 months than prednisone alone.¹⁴ In patients with contraindications to systemic glucocorticoid therapy, rituximab has been shown as an effective first-line therapy.¹⁵ One-quarter of patients treated with rituximab relapsed within 2 years of treatment⁶ (average time to relapse, 6–26 months).¹⁶ High-dose rituximab regimens, along with a higher number of rituximab treatment cycles, have been shown to prolong time to relapse.⁶ Further, higher baseline levels of Dsg-1 antibody have been correlated to earlier relapse and can be used following rituximab therapy to monitor disease progression.^6,16

The differential diagnosis for pemphigus foliaceous includes disseminated blastomycosis, hypertrophic lupus erythematosus, sebopsoriasis, and secondary syphilis. Disseminated blastomycosis presents with cutaneous manifestations such as nodules, papules, or pustules evolving over weeks to months into ulcers with subsequent scarring.¹⁷ Hypertrophic lupus erythematosus presents with papules and nodules with associated keratotic scaling on the face, palms, and extensor surfaces of the limbs.¹⁸ Sebopsoriasis is characterized by well-defined lesions with an overlying scale distributed on the scalp, face, and chest.¹⁹ Secondary syphilis presents as early hyperpigmented macules transitioning to acral papulosquamous lesions involving the palms and soles.²⁰

The Diagnosis: Pemphigus Foliaceous

Laboratory workup including a complete blood cell count with differential, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, Sjögren syndrome A and B antibodies, hepatitis profile, rapid plasma reagin, HIV screen, aldolase, anti–Jo-1, T-Spot TB test (Quest Diagnostics), and tissue cultures was unremarkable. Two 4-mm punch biopsies were obtained from the left cheek and upper back, both of which demonstrated intragranular acantholysis suggestive of pemphigus foliaceous (Figure 1A). A subsequent punch biopsy from the right lower abdomen sent for direct immunofluorescence demonstrated netlike positivity of IgG and C3 in the upper epidermis (Figure 1B), and serum sent for indirect immunofluorescence demonstrated intercellular IgG antibodies to desmoglein (Dsg) 1 on monkey esophagus and positive Dsg-1 antibodies on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, confirming the diagnosis.

The patient was started on a 60-mg prednisone taper as well as dapsone 50 mg daily; the dapsone was titrated up to 100 mg daily. After tapering down to 10 mg daily of prednisone over 2 months and continuing dapsone with minimal improvement, he was given 2 infusions of rituximab 1000 mg 2 weeks apart. The scalp plaque was dramatically improved at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2), with partial improvement of the cheek plaques (Figure 3). Dapsone was increased to 150 mg daily, and he was encouraged to use triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily, which led to further improvement.

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease that most commonly occurs in middle-aged adults. It generally is less common than pemphigus vulgaris, except in Finland, Tunisia, and Brazil, where there is an endemic condition with an identical clinical and histological presentation known as fogo selvagem.¹

The pathogenesis of pemphigus foliaceous is characterized by IgG autoantibodies against Dsg-1, a transmembrane glycoprotein involved in the cellular adhesion of keratinocytes, which is preferentially expressed in the superficial epidermis.^2-7 Dysfunction of Dsg-1 results in the separation of superficial epidermal cells, resulting in intraepidermal blisters.^2,7 In contrast to pemphigus vulgaris, there typically is a lack of oral mucosal involvement due to compensation by Dsg-3 in the mucosa.⁴ Potential triggers for pemphigus foliaceous include exposure to UV radiation; radiotherapy; pregnancy; physiologic stress; and drugs, most commonly captopril, penicillamine, and thiols.⁸

Pemphigus foliaceous lesions clinically appear as eroded and crusted lesions on an erythematous base, commonly in a seborrheic distribution on the face, scalp, and trunk with sparing of the oral mucosa,^2,6 but lesions can progress to a widespread and more severe exfoliative dermatitis.⁷ Lesions also can appear as psoriasiform plaques and often are initially misdiagnosed as psoriasis, particularly in patients with skin of color.^9,10

Diagnosis of pemphigus foliaceous typically is made using a combination of histology as well as both direct and indirect immunofluorescence. Histologically, pemphigus foliaceus presents with subcorneal acantholysis, which is most prominent in the granular layer and occasionally the presence of neutrophils and eosinophils in the blister cavity.⁷ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates netlike intercellular IgG and C3 in the upper portion of the epidermis.¹¹ Indirect immunofluorescence can help detect circulating IgG antibodies to Dsg-1, with guinea pig esophagus being the ideal substrate.^11,12

First-line treatment of pemphigus foliaceus consists of systemic glucocorticoid therapy, often administered with azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.^2,6,13 Although first-line treatment is effective in 60% to 80% of patients,² relapsing cases can be treated with cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulin, immunoadsorption, plasmapheresis, or rituximab.²

Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting CD20⁺ B cells, leading to decreased antibody production, which has been shown to be effective in treating severe and refractory cases of pemphigus foliaceus.^6,13Rituximab with short-course prednisone has been found to be more effective in achieving complete remission at 24 months than prednisone alone.¹⁴ In patients with contraindications to systemic glucocorticoid therapy, rituximab has been shown as an effective first-line therapy.¹⁵ One-quarter of patients treated with rituximab relapsed within 2 years of treatment⁶ (average time to relapse, 6–26 months).¹⁶ High-dose rituximab regimens, along with a higher number of rituximab treatment cycles, have been shown to prolong time to relapse.⁶ Further, higher baseline levels of Dsg-1 antibody have been correlated to earlier relapse and can be used following rituximab therapy to monitor disease progression.^6,16

The differential diagnosis for pemphigus foliaceous includes disseminated blastomycosis, hypertrophic lupus erythematosus, sebopsoriasis, and secondary syphilis. Disseminated blastomycosis presents with cutaneous manifestations such as nodules, papules, or pustules evolving over weeks to months into ulcers with subsequent scarring.¹⁷ Hypertrophic lupus erythematosus presents with papules and nodules with associated keratotic scaling on the face, palms, and extensor surfaces of the limbs.¹⁸ Sebopsoriasis is characterized by well-defined lesions with an overlying scale distributed on the scalp, face, and chest.¹⁹ Secondary syphilis presents as early hyperpigmented macules transitioning to acral papulosquamous lesions involving the palms and soles.²⁰

Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.

All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:

East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.

Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:

The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:

Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.

Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.

This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:

A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)

An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)

A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)

Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)

Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)

Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.

When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.

We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:

I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.

Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.

Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.

All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:

East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.

Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:

The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:

Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.

Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.

This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:

A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)

An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)

A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)

Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)

Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)

Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.

When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.

We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:

I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.

Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.

Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.

All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:

East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.

Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:

The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:

Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.

Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.

This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:

A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)

An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)

A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)

Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)

Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)

Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.

When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.

We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:

I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.

Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.