The Experiences of Women in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding the unique experiences of women in otolaryngology is key to promoting gender equity within this field. The objective of this study is to systematically synthesize the literature on the experiences of women in otolaryngology during training and practice and identify gender disparities in representation and remuneration, scholarship and leadership, harassment and mistreatment, and pregnancy and parenthood. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, CINAHL, gray literature sources (inception to November 24, 2024). REVIEW METHODS: English-language studies describing the experiences of women attendings and trainees in otolaryngology were included. Review articles, opinion pieces, and letters were excluded. Primary outcomes included representation, remuneration, contribution to scholarship, representation in leadership, incidence of harassment and mistreatment, and incidence of pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant disparities were identified in representation and renumeration, scholarship and leadership, discrimination and harassment, and pregnancy and parenthood. Women were under-represented across all clinical settings and in research and leadership. Women attendings and residents report greater discrimination and harassment compared to men. Women described significant challenges in family planning, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Pregnancy and child-rearing were described as barriers to career advancement. CONCLUSION: Gender disparities in otolaryngology are reported across multiple professional and personal domains, ranging from representation to research productivity and from mistreatment to motherhood. Understanding the unique experiences and challenges of women in otolaryngology is crucial to improving work and learning environments.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".