WOMEN IN ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY: A SCOPING REVIEW ON CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a broad overview on barriers facing women in orthopedic surgery both thematically and temporarily. A systematic search of EMBASE, PUBMED and MEDLINE identified relevant studies to the above objectives with the consultation of a librarian. The following search terms were used “orthopedics”, “women”, “gender inquity”, “gender diversity”, and “workforce”. Articles were then coded by theme by two reviewers. 281 articles were included in the final scoping review and read by the lead author. Articles were sorted in categories such as: workforce (24), leadership/academia (26), medical student perspective (17), gender bias and discrimination (48) and mentorship (4); representing considerations that may impact women during their training. Workforce articles summarized the demographic changes in orthopedic surgery with more women entering orthopedics as trainees, but still being the minority of orthopedic surgeons, despite other specialties improving gender parity more rapidly such as general surgery (1). Leadership and academia articles demonstrated the “glass ceiling”; women orthopedic surgeons often fail to reach the same academic ranks as men (ie: professorship) (2,3). The lack of women leaders in orthopedics further decreases lack of mentorship for aspiring orthopedic surgeon who are not men, which is a known factor on how students choose their speciality (4). Medical student perspectives showed that there are inherent stereotypes (ie: must be strong, play sports) that further deter women from considering orthopedics, which may decrease their exposure to the field (5). Gender bias articles further explored the “boys club” mentality women feel from medical school to staff-hood. Barriers in residency and staff-hood continue for women as they are often left out of informal networks because of conflicting family duties or interests (ie sports based) (5). Women face multiple barriers across training that can deter them from pursuing orthopaedics and thriving in the field. Not only may women not pursue orthopedics because of their perceptions of the field, but there is a further lack of exposure and mentorship. Once in residency and staff-hood, further difficulty reaching the same level of academic leadership and achievement as their gender counterparts due to gender bias. This scoping review summarizes the impact of gender when pursuing an orthopedic career in a temporal framework.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".