HealthManagement, Volume 18 - Issue 1, 2018

Women in radiology

share Share

The American experience and perspective


Professor Stephen Baker gives an overview of women’s place in radiology and how times archanging.


When I write this, and no doubt months later if and when you read it, the matter of women’s place in society will remain centre stage. In the west, at least, there has been an insistenawareness of their collective lack of opportunity, lack of respecand also a lack of protection in a hitherto male-dominated society. In somregard the pertinent issues to be mediated if not resolved are obvious, in other contexts the impingements are less obvious and need to be better appreciated before they can be effectively corrected.

Medicine is not immune from justifiable presumptions by women that the performance space is not level. True enough, the percentage of female medical students continues to rise anin manplaces, ranging from Canadto Kazakhstan, they encompass more than 60 percent of trainees.

Yet in each country, particularities of history, culture and policy engender variations in the characteristics of the nature of inequality. Thus, although it may be useful to generalise I focus my comments on what i know best ie American medicinand, to the point, American Radiology.


A first place to look is residenceducation. As the percentage of women medical students has risen to nearly 50 percent so too has female representation increased proportionally in nearly all specialty programmes, surgical as well as medical.


In fact, in a recent study of ours, urology was most rapidly expandinits cadre of women trainees. But one specialty is not increasing its complement of women. For the past 15 years its female presencas trainees has stabilised between 25 and 27 percent per annum. The non-intuitive, in fact, perplexing outlier is radiology.


W
hy is this so? Many explanations have been proffered for this apparent anomaly. To wit: women are not good at physics, they dont want to be subject to radiation, the lead apronthey have to wear are too heavy. In a survey of women  radiologists, we conducted several years ago, none of these choices were regarded as explanations for the limitation. But one factor did emerge in querieof both current radiology residents and those who considered radiology but chose to do something else. Among them the predominant negative factor was the perception by family and friends that young female doctors should choose to pursue as their lifes work a patient-centrediscipline. Many lay people do not think that description pertains to radiology. Also, today, the spectre of AI inroads in diagnosis will bear directly on the ownership  of opportunity in imaging, which is a worrisome consideration for perspective residents, men and women alike.

One would expect that pathology, too, would be less highly regarded  because of its further remoteness from patient/doctor interaction. Yet  the percentage of trainees in this specialty continues to enlarge, but in the USA, many of these trainees arnot native born or arforeigners who have comto our programmes to gain skills anthen are mandated to return home. A large percentage of them are from South and East Asia, where they have told us, the biases  for direct patiencare is not part of the compelling narrative families present to guide careechoice.

Once board certified and out of practice, women radiologists in the aggregate tend to self-select or be channelled to certain sub-specialties, particularly breast and paediatric radiology which tend to limit work locations to mammography offices and hospitals, particularly childrens hospitals. Yet all sub- specialties now have, I presume, adequate female representation or, at least overt restrictions are not prominent. In academic practice, however, a disproportionate  number of women become supervisors of medical student teaching or residency programme directors. Both are important tasks but their time commitment retards researcproductivity. And the size of ones C.V. is still a good indicator of advancement up the academic ladder.


Women compromise only 15 percent of full time radiologists in private practice in the US. Part of thdifference betweepercentage in residency and percentage in practice is that female radiologists over 50 are less commothan those who are younger. Also, women radiologists are more likely to work part-time than men.

Among the officers of the national leadership of our specialty, women are no longer rare but they are lower in percentage than their numbers in academic and private practice. Until they extensively populate the upper echelons of governance in our specialty, the inequalities of practice and prospecwill remain.


I
n the hierarchy of American academic radiology, the participation of women as leaders has increased with their expandinrepresentation amembers and faculty. In major societies sucathe Radiological Society of North America and the Society of Chairman of Academic Radiology Departments they occupy top positions. They continue to play a major role in the policies of the specialty organisation in which they compromise a large percentage of duepayersucas the ultrasound and breast
imaging societies.

But they have not ascended to the leadership of the American College of Radiology (ACR). Moreover, in committees of that organisation  they are underrepresented which limits their voice in the articulation of their specific needs, perceptions  and challenges. The American College of Radiology is compromised predominately by radiologists in private practice. For the most part in the state brancchapters of the organisation women tend to play a limited role. Indeed, the lack of attention to the persisting issue of the relative unattractiveness of female medical students for a career in radiology has not been  a major matter for discussioin the ACR. Yet it should be if the specialty is to thrive at a time when its stewardship of the technology it deploys is under increasing threat.

Hence, if American radiology can be likened to a house, the front door is opebut many women are reluctant to enter. Once inside there is no glass ceiling but female occupants are still accustomed by choice and by subtle cueto remain in a few rooms none of which are on the top floor. 


Key Points

  • The percentage of American medical students who are women is increasing but not their percentage in radiology residency programmes.
  • The reasons for the lack of increasing interest are multiple but parental and family member perception of women doctors to be immediate caregivers seems to be a major hindrance to the choice of our specialty.
  • Women are well represented in academic societies in our specialty.
  • Women have a lesser voice in state radiological societies and the American College of Radiology.

References:

Jackson, I, Bobbin M, Baker, SR, Jordan, M. (2009) A survey of women urology residents regarding choice and practice challenges. Journal of Women's Health.

18(11):1867-1872.

 

Baker, SR. (2009) The training of radiology residents in the United States and Europe: Major differences and some  similarities. Second International Society of Radiology. Virtual Congress.




Related Articles

In healthcare patients are not consumers with the economic power they have in other markets, but the arguments for patient involvement... Read more

Founded in the same year as the NHS and celebrating its 70th birthday in 2018, the UK charity Music in Hospitals & Care continues... Read more

Top Quote from BlogAppropriate utilisation of imaging and defensive medicine - where do we stand?“Broadly speaking, more examinations... Read more

Imaging, Radiology, Healthcare, Medicine, pathology, medical students, female medical students, Breast Radiology, Paediatric Radiology , women in radiology, women in healthcare, Prof. Stephen Baker, residency education, women radiologists Professor Stephen Bakers gives an overview of women’s place in radiology and how times are changing.

No comment


Please login to leave a comment...