“Diversity in Surgery—How Do We Change the Narrative: Pipeline to Professor?”

The goal of our paper is to provide our perspectives on why there is a need to change the narrative in academic surgery to improve health equity by increasing the pipeline of pre-med students to professors. It is well documented that Health disparities hurt many different people, but they especially hurt Black, Indigenous, and People of color. Black men and women have a decreased life expectancy. Differences in care are associated with greater mortality among minority patients and that care provided to black patients by black physicians can lead to improved compliance with medications and care plans. The lack of black diversity in the medical profession proportional to the societal ethnic distribution is alarming. We have opportunities for improvement for recruitment, retention and promotion within the field of surgery.

EP.TU.169Gender Representation in the Authorship of Surgical Journals

Aims Despite the increase in female doctors graduating from medical schools internationally, gender disparity in surgery remains. This disparity is also evident in academic surgery. This study aims to quantify the extent of gender disparity in the authorship of articles in major surgical journals. Methods The Top 10 Surgical Journals were identified using SCImago Journal Rank indicator. Authorship details for papers published in 2019 were collected. Authors were assigned as female, male or unknown using Gender API software (Gender API, Germany). For each journal, the percentage of first author, last author, corresponding author and all authors split by gender was interrogated. Gender differences by publication type were also identified. Results 9 of the 10 journals had full names publicly available. Overall, 2414 manuscripts were interrogated which included 16,277 number of authors. Respectively, females and males accounted for 29.8% [22.9-34.9%] (N = 655) and 62.4% [56.3-70.2%] (N = 1419) of first authors, 20.6% [11.8-27.1%] (N = 453) and 74.2% [65.6-84.1%] (N = 1706) of last authors, 23.9% [14.9-29.6%] (N = 510) and 69.9% [60.5-79.3%] (N = 2341) of corresponding authors and in total 27% [19.4-31.6%] (N = 4298) and 65.5% [58.6-73.4%] (N = 9982) of all authors. The wide range in these results could be due to various factors. Conclusion This study has identified a gender imbalance in authorship positions, with the greatest difference observed in the most senior author position. Whether this is reflective of the current disparity observed in senior academic surgery positions or due to gender discrimination is unclear.