Culminating Experience in Women’s Health Research

Anna KaatzUW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health

MPH Final Presentation

November 11, 2009

Outline

• Background

• Methods

• Results

• Discussion

• Conclusion

• Acknowledgments

Background• Personal:

– Teaching and Researching Women’s Health.– Research Question: Why are there gaps in women’s

health research?

• Field Experience:– Mentor: Dr. Molly Carnes, Director of The UW-Center

for Women’s Health Research

• Research Project:– Examination of NIH Peer Review for Gender Bias

Study BackgroundA Critical, Interconnected Public Health Issue

• NIH Office for Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) & DHHS Office on Women’s Health Research (OWH):– The establishment and advancement of women in careers

in biomedical research and academic medicine is linked to advancing women’s health research.

– Female Scientists are more likely than males to study women’s health issues.

Carnes et al. (2007). Women’s Health and Women’s Leadership in Academic Medicine: Hitting the Same Glass

Ceiling? J.Women’s Health, 17(9),1454-5.

Study BackgroundThe Problem:The Pipeline is “Leaky”

Proportion of women in academic medicine, by educational stage and rank.

Association of American Medical Colleges (2005). Women in US Academic Medicine:Statistics and Medical School Benchmarking,http://www.aamc.org/members/wim/statistics/stats05/wimstats2005.pdf.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Barriers to Women’s Career Advancement: Examining the Evidence Base

• There are enough women in the “pipeline” and women are equally committed as males to careers in academic medicine and research.

• Inequalities related to systematic gender bias pose the greatest barrier to achieving gender equity.

Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of

Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Study Question: Is Gender Bias in NIH Grant Peer Review a Barrier for Women’s Career Advancement in Academic Medicine

and Research?Ley and Hamilton, 2008: Female MDs are less likely than males to receive initial, and

renewal NIH R01 funding.

Johnson, 2008: NIH Peer-reviewer bias affected 25% of funding decisions.

Bornmann et al, 2007: Meta-analysis identified significant gender-bias in peer-review for scientific grants.

Hosek et al, 2005: Female PIs receive 37% less funding than males from NIH, receive only 13% of multi-million dollar awards, and are less likely to reapply within two years.

Carnes et al, 2005: Identified gender bias in selection criteria for the NIH Director Pioneer Award.

Study Methods

• Social Science IRB: “Examination of Words and Descriptors in NIH Grant Reviews”

• Collection of K, R, and T Grant Reviews for 2008-2009 Awards with at least one Revision

• De-identification of Reviews• Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Reviews

for Gender Bias– Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC)– NVIVO

Preliminary Results• R Awards are Focus of Analysis

– Total R Awards: 201– M: 144 F: 57– 28.4% of awards went to female PIs– 91% of total females did revisions (39)

• A1: 54%, A2: 46%

– 77% of total males did revisions (81)• A1: 60.5%, A2: 39.5%

• More females than males submitted multiple revisions.• Male applications were approved more rapidly.

Preliminary Results

• Qualitative Observations:• For applicants with similar backgrounds and qualifications,

females are subject to more lengthy and critical reviews than males.

– Similar to a study by Trix & Psenka, 2003: • To describe female applicants reviewers use more “negative

language,” “doubt raisers,” and more “language related to gender.”

– Similar to a study by Schmader et al, 2007:• More Standout Adjectives are used to describe male

applicants (e.g. outstanding, exceptional, excellent, unique, strong).

Preliminary Results

• Methods for Successful Grant Writing:– Addressing every concern and question

with evidence base responses. – Using same language as reviewers.– Emphasizing public health relevance.– Emphasizing capacity for innovation

based upon personal skills and training.

Discussion:

• There is still a long way to go…– Finish Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of

Reviews.– Analysis of results.– Study results may contribute to many

disciplines: grant writing, cognitive psychology, educational leadership, biomedical research, policy.

Conclusion: A Field Learning Experience in Research,

Leadership, and Policy

• Research:– Using MPH training to study a public health problem

• Leadership:– Directing and Training two Interns– Leading Research Meetings

• Policy:– Participation in Working Group for Policy at NIH Office

for Research on Women’s Health Regional Scientific Workshop

Acknowledgements

• Barb Duerst and all MPH faculty, staff and students.

• Dr. Molly Carnes, Dr. Carol Isaac, Vicki Leatherberry, Majiedah Pasha, Sharon Topp, Erin Aagesen, Katie Muratore, and Kristin Cox from the UW-CWHR.

• Dr. Nancy Worcester, Dr. Mariamne Whatley, Dr. Judy Houck, and Dr. CC Ford.

• My family, Sara Ishado, and Megan Reading

References• Association of American Medical Colleges (2005). Women in US Academic Medicine: Statistics and Medical School

Benchmarking, http://www.aamc.org/members/wim/statistics/stats05/wimstats2005.pdf.• Association of American Medical Colleges (2005). The changing representation of men and women in academic medicine.

AAMC Analysis in Brief 5(2):1-2,http://www.aamc.org/data/aib/aibissues/aibvol5_no2.pdf.• Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.D. (2007). Gender difference in grant review: a meta-analysis. J. Informetrics 1:226-238.• Carnes M, Geller S, Fine E, Sheridan J, Handelsman J. (2005) NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: could the selection process

be biased against women? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2005 Oct;14(8):684–91.• Carnes et al. (2007). Women’s Health and Women’s Leadership in Academic Medicine: Hitting the Same Glass Ceiling?

J.Women’s Health, 17(9),1453-1462.• Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential

of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press• Hosek, S., et al. (2005) Genderdifferences in major federal external grant programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.• Johnson, V. E. 2008. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

105:11076-11080.• Ley, T.J., and Hamilton, B.H. (2008). The Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications. Science, 322:1472-1474.• Schmader, T., Whitehead, J., Wysocki, VH. (2007). A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and

Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants. Sex Roles, 57: 509-514.• Trix, Frances and Carolyn Psenska. (2003). Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female

Medical Faculty.” Discourse & Society, 4(2): 191-220.• Valian, Virginia. (1998). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.• Viner, N., Powell, P., Green, R. (2004). Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis

revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage. J. Research Policy 33(3): 443-454.• Wessely, S. (1998). Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352:301-305• Wennerås C, Wold A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature,87:341–343. doi: 10.1038/387341a0.