TUESDAY, June 12, 2012 (MedPage Today) — Female doctor specialists profit than their male partners, scientists found.
Among beneficiaries of National Institutes of Health (NIH) profession advancement grants, the normal announced yearly compensation was $167,669 for ladies and $200,433 for men, as indicated by Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the UnTUESDAY, June 12, 2012 (MedPage Today) — Female physician researchers make less money than their male counterparts, researchers found.
Among recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) career development awards, the average reported annual salary was $167,669 for women and $200,433 for men, according to Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and colleagues.
Even after adjustment for differences in specialty, academic rank, leadership positions, publications, and research time, there remained an absolute difference of $13,399 per year between the sexes, the researchers reported in the June 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study, which is consistent with a previous study of life sciences researchers, “provides evidence that gender differences in compensation continue to exist in academic medicine, even among a select cohort of physician researchers whose job content is far more similar than in cohorts previously studied, and even after controlling extensively for specialization and productivity,” they wrote.
“Efforts to investigate the mechanisms by which these gender differences develop and ways to mitigate their effects merit continued attention, as these differences have not been eliminated through the passage of time alone and are difficult to justify.”
In 2009 and 2010, Jagsi and colleagues mailed surveys to all 1,729 recipients of NIH K08 and K23 career development awards issued from 2000 through 2003 who were alive and had an identifiable mailing address. The response rate was 71 percent.
The current analysis was restricted to the 800 physicians (31 percent female) who had an MD, continued to practice at a U.S. academic institution, and reported their current salary. The mean age of the respondents was 45, and 76 percent were white.
Men were more likely than women to be married, have children, and hold administrative leadership positions. The male researchers also had a higher average number of publications and work hours.
Women were more likely to be in the lowest-paying specialties (those paying less than $175,000 per year) and less likely to be in the highest-paying specialties (more than $300,000 per year).
Accounting for those differences did not entirely eliminate the pay disparity between the sexes, which, if extrapolated over a 30-year career, would result in a shortfall of more than $350,000 for women.
All other factors remaining equal, the female researchers in the study would be expected to make $12,194 more per year if they were male. “This unexplained disparity accounted for 37.4 percent of the total observed difference by gender,” the authors wrote.
They speculated about some of the reasons women are paid less than men, including the possible influence of parental status. Even women without children in the current study, however, were shortchanged.
It is also possible, the authors wrote, there are differences in values between men and women. Perhaps men place a greater value on pay and women place more emphasis on living in a more desirable area, even if it means taking a smaller salary, they suggested.
But the disparity could be explained, at least partly, by gender bias and discrimination, according to the authors.
“Numerous psychological studies suggest the existence of small yet meaningful gender biases, often unconscious, that may ultimately influence the outcomes of women’s careers, including hiring, salaries, and promotions,” they wrote. “These biases have been demonstrated to be particularly likely to be mobilized when women are mothers.”
Jagsi and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by potential selection bias and the use of self-report for most of the measures, which could introduce recall bias.iversity of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and associates.
Indeed, even after change for contrasts in claim to fame, scholastic rank, authority positions, productions, and research time, there remained an outright distinction of $13,399 every year between the genders, the specialists detailed in the June 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The examination, which is predictable with a past investigation of life sciences analysts, “gives confirm that sexual orientation contrasts in remuneration keep on existing in scholastic prescription, even among a select associate of doctor scientists whose activity content is significantly more comparative than in companions already considered, and even in the wake of controlling broadly for specialization and profitability,” they composed.
“Endeavors to examine the instruments by which these sex contrasts create and approaches to moderate their belongings justify proceeded with consideration, as these distinctions have not been disposed of through the progression of time alone and are hard to legitimize.”
In 2009 and 2010, Jagsi and partners sent reviews to each of the 1,729 beneficiaries of NIH K08 and K23 profession improvement grants issued from 2000 through 2003 who were alive and had an identifiable street number. The reaction rate was 71 percent.
The present investigation was limited to the 800 doctors (31 percent female) who had a MD, kept on rehearsing at a U.S. scholarly organization, and announced their present pay. The mean age of the respondents was 45, and 76 percent were white.
Men were more probable than ladies to be hitched, have youngsters, and hold regulatory initiative positions. The male specialists additionally had a higher normal number of distributions and work hours.
Ladies will probably be in the most minimal paying claims to fame (those paying under $175,000 every year) and less inclined to be in the most astounding paying fortes (more than $300,000 every year).
Representing those distinctions did not by any stretch of the imagination dispense with the compensation dissimilarity between the genders, which, if extrapolated over a 30-year profession, would bring about a shortage of more than $350,000 for ladies.
Every other factor staying square with, the female specialists in the examination would be relied upon to make $12,194 more every year on the off chance that they were male. “This unexplained divergence represented 37.4 percent of the aggregate watched distinction by sex,” the creators composed.
They theorized about a portion of the reasons ladies are paid not as much as men, including the conceivable impact of parental status. Indeed, even ladies without youngsters in the present examination, in any case, were scammed.
It is likewise conceivable, the creators composed, there are contrasts in values amongst men and ladies. Maybe men put a more prominent incentive on pay and ladies put more accentuation on living in a more attractive zone, regardless of whether it implies taking a littler pay, they recommended.
Be that as it may, the dissimilarity could be clarified, in any event halfway, by sexual orientation predisposition and separation, as per the creators.
“Various mental investigations recommend the presence of little yet significant sexual orientation inclinations, frequently oblivious, that may at last impact the results of ladies’ vocations, including procuring, pay rates, and advancements,” they composed. “These predispositions have been exhibited to probably be prepared when ladies are moms.”
Jagsi and associates recognized that the examination was constrained by potential choice predisposition and the utilization of self-report for the vast majority of the measures, which could present review inclination.