Disparities in Research during Plastic Surgery Training: How Can We Level the Playing Field?

BACKGROUND

Lack of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) surgeons remains concerning in academic plastic surgery. One barrier to inclusion may be unequal opportunity to publish research. This study evaluates the extent of this challenge for plastic surgery trainees and identifies potential solutions.

METHODS

Data were collected on academic plastic surgeons' research productivity during training. Bivariate analysis compared publication measures between genders and race/ethnicities at different training stages (pre-residency/residency/clinical fellowship). Multivariate analysis determined training experiences independently associated with increased research productivity.

RESULTS

Overall, women had fewer total publications than men during training (8.89 versus 12.46, = 0.0394). Total publications were similar between genders before and during residency ( > 0.05 for both) but lower for women during fellowship (1.32 versus 2.48, = 0.0042). Women had a similar number of first-author publications during training (3.97 versus 5.24, = 0.1030) but fewer middle-author publications (4.70 versus 6.81, = 0.0405). UIM and non-UIM individuals had similar productivity at all training stages and authorship positions ( > 0.05 for all). Research fellowship completion was associated with increased total, first-, and middle-author training publications ( < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Less research productivity for female plastic surgery trainees may reflect a disparity in opportunity to publish. Fewer middle-author publications could indicate challenges with network-building in a predominately male field. Despite comparable research productivity during training relative to non- UIM individuals, UIM individuals remain underrepresented in academic plastic surgery. Creating research fellowships for targeting underrepresented groups could help overcome these challenges.