Correlation Between Gender of Department Chairs and Paid Parental Leave Benefits in Academic Dermatology Residency Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the number of women entering dermatology residency programs is increasing, they still encounter numerous challenges and disparities, including limited career opportunities and difficulties in balancing family planning with their professional lives. Parental leave policies have been recognized for their positive impact on maternal, fetal, and familial well-being, career satisfaction, and gender equality. However, negative perceptions and a lack of awareness surrounding these policies may discourage female residents from taking parental leave during training. This study investigates the relationship between the gender of department chairs and the advertisement of paid parental leave policies in dermatology residency programs. METHODS: Data from the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online) and the Canadian Residency Match System (CaRMS) were utilized to identify accredited residency programs in the USA and Canada, respectively. Manual searches for gender of department chairs and parental leave policies in dermatology programs were performed between December 2021 and January 2022. RESULTS: Out of the 146 programs in the USA and 10 in Canada, most department chairs were male. Only 9.6% of programs, all from the USA, explicitly advertised paid parental leave policies specific to dermatology residents. There was a significant correlation between the gender of the department chair and the presence of specific policies, which was only observed in the northeastern region of the USA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the lack of advertised parental leave policies in dermatology residency programs and potential barriers preventing access to this crucial information. Lack of clear policies and negative perceptions may deter female residents from considering childbearing during their training or hinder them from taking parental leave when needed. Future research should explore program-specific reasons for policy advertising or omission and their perception by applicants and current residents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".