Cross-sectional analysis reveals increased use of nonspecific terminology in reference to women dermatologists in patient reviews at academic centers.

The use of non-specific language to describe board-certified dermatologists in academic settings obscures the public understanding of their qualifications. This study analyzes online patient reviews nationwide to assess gender differences in the terminology used to describe academic dermatologists. We conducted a cross-sectional study, examining reviews from 62 academic institutions across 39 states, analyzing the use of terms such as "provider," "practitioner," "clinician," "health care professional," "physician," "dermatologist," and "doctor." Gender identification was determined through analysis of photographs, names, and pronouns from online biographies. Statistical analyses were performed using two-sample Z-tests with a significance level of 0.01. The data included 65,316 reviews (26,159 from reviews of men and 39,157 from women). Our findings demonstrated a statistically significant gender disparity in term usage. Women dermatologists were more frequently referred to as "provider" (5.01%) compared to their male counterparts (3.92%; p < 0.001). A smaller, but still statistically significant, disparity was found with the term "dermatologist" (5.61% for women vs. 5.13% for men; p < 0.01). Other professional terms did not show significant gender differences in usage. The results suggest a consistent gender bias in the language used by patients, with women more frequently referred to by the nonspecific term "provider," potentially diminishing their perceived qualifications compared to male dermatologists. This disparity in language use might influence patient perceptions of expertise and professional authority, emphasizing the need for clearer communication and more precise use of professional titles. Limitations of the study include possible underestimations due to misspelled terms and potential misgendering from online profiles. Additionally, data from 11 states were insufficient, likely due to the absence of academic centers in those regions. In conclusion, our study highlights notable gender disparities in the terminology used in patient reviews of dermatologists across academic centers in the U.S. Addressing these language biases is crucial for enhancing gender equity and improving patient understanding of dermatologists' roles and expertise.