Editor’s note: Dr. Kristin Tiedt (she/her) is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and complex care at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Tiedt’s academic interests include developing standardized approaches to pediatric procedural sedation education across subspecialties, using multidisciplinary approach to deliver safe and effective care for hospitalized children, and examining the role of gender bias in evaluations. – Kristin A. Shadman, MD, Editorial Board Member, Hospital Pediatrics
The field of pediatrics is unique among medical specialties for its higher representation of females to males. Despite this imbalance, females have lower rates of promotion and are less likely to hold leadership positions than their male counterparts. Teaching evaluations of academic faculty have historically been a contributing factor for physician advancement. However, teaching evaluations of faculty are variable across settings and lend themselves to a degree of subjectivity, and in turn, the potential for bias.
In this month’s Hospital Pediatrics, an article early releasing entitled, “Gender Disparity in Teaching Evaluations of Pediatric Faculty by Residents,” by Dr. Rebekah S. Shaw and colleagues evaluated over 15,000 resident teaching evaluations of pediatric faculty over a 5-year period for the presence of gender-based differences (10.1542/hpeds.2023-007228). Evaluations were based on the presence of gender-based disparities, potential differences across primary care and subspecialties, and primary work environment (inpatient vs outpatient). Outcomes were calculated using mean ratings from an internally developed, 5-point likert-scale based evaluation tool that included a global assessment of overall teaching ability.
The authors predicted that within their department, which followed the national pattern of female predominance, male faculty would be favorably evaluated compared to female faculty. Instead, they found that while faculty were rated to have excellent teaching ability across genders, female faculty received higher ratings compared to their male colleagues for overall teaching ability. These differences in overall teaching ability persisted for pediatric faculty in the outpatient setting and for primary care pediatrics.
What are the key takeaways?
This study adds to a growing body of evidence analyzing the complex relationship of gender, medicine, and academia. The unanticipated results of this study showing that female faculty were rated slightly more favorably than male faculty in overall teaching ability prompts me as the reader to ponder cause. Is it, as the authors point out, that females in the field of pediatrics may be in alignment with their gender-based and cultural stereotypes that describe them as caregivers and teachers? Or are there unmeasured factors related to the experience and time spent teaching that exerted some influence? Lastly, the authors bring attention to the evaluation tools themselves, which often lack validity and reliability within and across academic institutions, allowing the language used within them to potentially induce or mitigate bias.
Read the article by Shaw et al, as it is a great addition to the literature in this field and one that piques my interest to learn more.
