Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Neurocritical Care Society Gender Parity Analysis in Grants and Recognition Awards

  • Original work
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Several recent studies across the field of medicine have indicated gender disparity in the reception of prestigious awards and research grants, placing women in medicine at a distinct disadvantage. Gender disparity has been observed in neurology, critical care medicine and within various professional societies. In this study, we have examined the longitudinal trends of gender parity in awards and grants within the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all available data longitudinally from 2004, when NCS first granted awards through 2019. We used self-identified gender in the membership roster to record gender for each individual. For individuals without recorded gender, we used a previously validated double verification method using a systematic web-based search. We collected data on six awards distributed by the NCS and divided these awards into two main categories: (1) scientific category: (a) Christine Wijman Young Investigator Award; (b) Best Scientific Abstract Award; (c) Fellowship Grant; (d) INCLINE Grant; and (2) non-scientific category: (a) Travel Grant; and (b) Presidential Citation. Available data were analyzed to evaluate longitudinal trends in awards using descriptive statistics and simple or multiple linear regression analyses, as appropriate.

Results

A total of 445 awards were granted between the years 2004 and 2019. Thirty-six awards were in the scientific category, while 409 awards were in the non-scientific category. Only 8% of women received NCS awards in the scientific awards category, whereas 44% of women received an award in the non-scientific category. Most notable in the scientific category are the Best Scientific Abstract Award and the Fellowship Grant, in which no woman has ever received an award to date, compared to 18 men between both awards. In contrast, women are well represented in the non-scientific awards category with an average of 5% increase per year in the number of women awardees.

Conclusions

Our data reveal gender disparity, mainly for scientific or research awards. Prompt evaluation of the cause and further actions to address gender disparity in NCS grants and recognition awards is needed to establish gender equity in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lincoln AE, Pincus SH, Leboy PS. Scholars’ awards go mainly to men. Nature. 2011;469:472.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Morgan AU, Chaiyachati KH, Weissman GE, Liao JM. Eliminating gender-based bias in academic medicine: more than naming the “elephant in the room”. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33:966–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosco L, Lorello GR, Flexman AM, Hastie MJ. Women in anaesthesia: a scoping review. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124:e134–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dottolo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:201–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Svarstad BL, Draugalis JR, Meyer SM, Mount JK. The status of women in pharmacy education: persisting gaps and issues. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004; 68(1–5):NNN1.

  6. Lautenberger DM, Dandar VM, Raezer CL. The state of women in academic medicine: the pipeline and pathways to leadership, 2013–2014. Washington: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Canadian medical education statistics; 2015. https://www.afmc.ca/sites/default/files/CMES2015-Section2-Enrolment.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2016.

  8. Schommer JC, Pedersen CA, Gaither CA, Doucette WR, Kreling DH, Mott DA. Pharmacists’ desired and actual times in work activities: evidence of gaps from the 2004 National Pharmacist Workforce Study. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;2006(46):340–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Young S, Lemessurier J, Mathews M. The feminization of the Canadian pharmacy workforce: a gender analysis of graduates from a Canadian school of pharmacy. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2012;145(186–190):e182.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hawthorne N, Anderson C. The global pharmacy workforce: a systematic review of the literature. Hum Resour Health. 2009;7:48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams JC. The glass ceiling and the maternal wall in academia. New Dir High Educ. 2005;2005(130):91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown JVE, Crampton PES, Finn GM, Morgan JE. From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality. Syst Rev. 2020;9:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burns KEA, Straus SE, Liu K, Rizvi L, Guyatt G. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: a retrospective analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Gender bias in CIHR Foundation grant awarding. Lancet. 2019;394:e41–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paulus JK, Switkowski KM, Allison GM, et al. Where is the leak in the pipeline? Investigating gender differences in academic promotion at an academic medical centre. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:125–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lerch-Pieper N, Brander S, Valarino I, Zurbriggen C, Maurer E, Herr W, Müller F et al. Challenging the “leaky pipeline” in faculties of medicine. 2018.

  17. Butkus R, Serchen J, Moyer DV, Bornstein SS, Hingle ST. Achieving gender equity in physician compensation and career advancement: a position paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:721–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Silver JK, Bank AM, Slocum CS, et al. Women physicians underrepresented in American Academy of Neurology recognition awards. Neurology. 2018;91:e603–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zimmerman JJ, Bailey H. Moving toward gender equity in critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:615–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leigh JP, Grood C, Ahmed SB, et al. Toward gender equity in critical care medicine: a qualitative study of perceived drivers, implications, and strategies. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:e286–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehta S, Burns KEA, Machado FR, et al. Gender parity in critical care medicine. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196:425–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Silver JK, Slocum CS, Bank AM, et al. Where are the women? The underrepresentation of women physicians among recognition award recipients from medical specialty societies. PM R. 2017;9:804–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lorello GR, Flexman AM. 75 years of leadership in the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society: a gender analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66:843–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Silver JK, Bhatnagar S, Blauwet CA, et al. Female physicians are underrepresented in recognition awards from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. PM R. 2017;9:976–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Draugalis JR, Plaza CM, Taylor DA, Meyer SM. The status of women in US academic pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78:178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Holmes MA. Gender bias influence awards given by societies? Eos. 2011;92:421–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Holmes MA, Asher P, Farrington J, Fine R, Leinen MS, LeBoy P. Does gender bias influence awards given by societies? Eos Trans Am Geophys Union. 2011;92(47):421–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kouta C, Kaite CP. Gender discrimination and nursing: a literature review. J Prof Nurs. 2011;27:59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Castner J. Healthy environments for women in academic nursing: addressing sexual harassment and gender discrimination. OJIN. 2019; 24(1).

  30. Hasan TF, Turnbull MT, Vatz KA, Robinson MT, Mauricio EA, Freeman WD. Burnout and attrition: expanding the gender gap in neurology? Neurology. 2019;93(23):1002–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith DG. Building institutional capacity for diversity and inclusion in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2012;87:1511–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomson CC, Riekert KA, Bates CK, et al. Addressing gender inequality in our disciplines: report from the association of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep division chiefs. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15:1382–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Laver KE, Prichard IJ, Cations M, Osenk I, Govin K, Coveney JD. A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci. 2012;42:307–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Woolston C. US National Academy pushes to make grants contingent on gender equity. Nature. 2020;580:296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hechtman LA, Moore NP, Schulkey CE, et al. NIH funding longevity by gender. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:7943–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jackson SM, Hillard AL, Schneider TR. Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Soc Psychol Educ. 2014;17:419–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the NCS Leadership and Executive Office, especially Ms. Sharon Allen, Allie Mandel, Tissy Greene, and Dovile Svirupskaite for their support of this work, as well as the WINCC section for their support and endorsement of this project.

Funding

No grant support was received from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Division of Stroke and Neurocritical Care, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Shraddha Mainali

  2. Neurocritical Care, OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA

    Asma M. Moheet

  3. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Victoria A. McCredie

  4. Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Victoria A. McCredie

  5. Krembil Research Institute, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Victoria A. McCredie

  6. College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Sarah Livesay

  7. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Jody Manners

  8. Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Denise H. Rhoney

  9. Department of Neurology, Anesthesia/Critical Care and Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Susanne Muehlschlegel

Authors
  1. Shraddha Mainali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asma M. Moheet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victoria A. McCredie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Livesay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jody Manners
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Denise H. Rhoney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susanne Muehlschlegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception, data collection and critical revision of the manuscript. SM performed the statistical analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shraddha Mainali.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval/Informed Consent

An Institutional Review Board waiver was granted by Rush University as the study did not meet the definition of human subjects research.

Conflicts of interest

All authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mainali, S., Moheet, A.M., McCredie, V.A. et al. The Neurocritical Care Society Gender Parity Analysis in Grants and Recognition Awards. Neurocrit Care 35, 358–366 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-01164-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-01164-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation