Compensation Disparities by Gender in Internal Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Letters6 November 2018Compensation Disparities by Gender in Internal MedicineSusan Read, PhD, Renee Butkus, BA, Arlene Weissman, PhD, and Darilyn V. Moyer, MDSusan Read, PhDAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (S.R., A.W., D.V.M.), Renee Butkus, BAAmerican College of Physicians, Washington, DC (R.B.), Arlene Weissman, PhDAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (S.R., A.W., D.V.M.), and Darilyn V. Moyer, MDAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (S.R., A.W., D.V.M.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0693 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Background: Despite progress toward gender diversity in the U.S. physician workforce, disparities in compensation and career advancement persist. Studies document that women earn substantially less than men after adjustment for specialty, hours worked, experience, and practice characteristics (1–3). Recent data on physician compensation by gender in internal medicine could help explain and address disparities within this specialty.Objective: To describe physician compensation by gender among U.S. American College of Physicians (ACP) internists.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative panel of ACP nonstudent members in the United States. Women make up 37% of ACP membership. The survey ...References1. Jena AB, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex differences in physician salary in US public medical schools. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1294-304. [PMID: 27400435] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3284 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Ly DP, Seabury SA, Jena AB. Differences in incomes of physicians in the United States by race and sex: observational study. BMJ. 2016;353:i2923. [PMID: 27268490] doi:10.1136/bmj.i2923 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307:2410-7. [PMID: 22692173] doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6183 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2016 Physician Specialty Data Report: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2016. Accessed at www.aamc.org/download/471786/data/2016physicianspecialtydatareportexecutivesummary.pdf on 22 December 2017. Google Scholar5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Matriculating Student Questionnaire: 2017 All Schools Summary Report. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 18 December 2017. Accessed at www.aamc.org/download/485324/data/msq2017report.pdf on 29 January 2018. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (S.R., A.W., D.V.M.)American College of Physicians, Washington, DC (R.B.)See also: Editorial comment (page 654).Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M18-0693.Reproducible Research Statement:Study protocol, statistical code, and data set: Available from Dr. Weissman (e-mail, [email protected]org).This article was published at Annals.org on 7 August 2018. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoUnequal Pay for Equal Work: Where Are We Now? Milda R. Saunders and Barbara J. Turner Metrics Cited byPerceived Barriers to Professional Equality Among Women in GastroenterologyHealth systems and quality of healthcare: bringing back missing discussions about gender and sexualityAnalysis of Physician Compensation Studies by Gender, Race, and EthnicityHot Off the Press: Addressing gender inequities: Creation of a multi‐institutional consortium of women physicians in academic emergency medicineForks in the Road—As Faced by Women in GastroenterologyGENDER INEQUALITY IN HEALTHCARE IN TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND REMUNERATION: LEGAL MEANS OF OVERCOMING THE PROBLEMCollateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women PhysiciansWomen in immunology: 2020 and beyondA Structured Compensation Plan Results in Equitable Physician Compensation2019 ACC Health Policy Statement on Cardiologist Compensation and Opportunity EquityHealth Care Crisis by the NumbersGender Differences in Earnings of Early- and Midcareer PediatriciansGender Wage Disparities in Medicine: Time to Close the GapGender differences in career satisfaction, moral distress, and incivility: a national, cross-sectional survey of Canadian critical care physiciansUnequal Pay for Equal Work: Where Are We Now?Milda R. Saunders, MD, MPH and Barbara J. Turner, MD, MSEd 6 November 2018Volume 169, Issue 9Page: 658-661KeywordsGender discriminationHospitalistsPatientsRacial and ethnic issuesResearch designSexual identityStatistical dataSub-specialty careSurvey researchTaxes ePublished: 7 August 2018 Issue Published: 6 November 2018 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2018 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,029 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».