Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4213203437> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 51 of
51
with 100 items per page.
- W4213203437 endingPage "S1295" @default.
- W4213203437 startingPage "S1294" @default.
- W4213203437 abstract "We aimed to evaluate if there are gender differences in the letters of recommendation (LOR) written for residents applying for gynecology surgical fellowships. We analyzed LOR for applicants to urogynecology, gynecology oncology, and minimally invasive gynecology fellowships at a single institution during the 2019-2020 application cycle. The linguistic content of the letters was analyzed for the presence of 4 summary variables and 21-word categories based on previous studies using a validated computerized text analysis software, Linguistic Inquiry, and Word Count. Multivariable analysis using linear mixed models was used to compare letter linguistic characteristics by applicant gender. Concurrently, we performed a qualitative content analysis on a random sample of LOR and compared the frequency of code themes by gender. The mixed-method design was planned a priori to analyze domains that are not captured in the text analysis, for example, surgical skills and leadership. Among 680 letters written for 186 applicants, 124(18.2%) LOR were written for men, and 556 (81.8%) LOR were written for women applicants. Men authored 384(56.5%) LOR. There were no gender differences in the median (interquartile range) number of letters submitted for men and women (4(3-4) v. 4(3-4); p=.18). There were no differences in the least square mean (SE) word counts for LOR written for men and women applicants, 465(20.0) v. 458(9.4) words, p=.74 On multivariable analysis, controlling for USMLE Step2 scores, residency program ranking, and letter writer gender, LOR written for men had higher authentic tone and more risk words (p=.005 and p=.03 respectively) (Figure 1). Whereas LOR written for women contained more communal (relationship-oriented) words (p=.006) compared to LOR for men. On the qualitative analysis of a random sample of 340 letters, the most common codes applied were ability and interpersonal traits (Figure 2). Comments about surgical skills and leadership potential were found more in letters for men. In contrast, comments on work ethic were found more in letters written for women. Despite having more risk words, LOR for men had more mentions of surgical skills and leadership compared to LOR for women. These gender differences in LOR written for gynecology fellowship applicants indicate the presence of subtle gender bias.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)" @default.
- W4213203437 created "2022-02-24" @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5012677026 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5013560905 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5020971510 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5027773836 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5035693037 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5063976447 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5066475180 @default.
- W4213203437 creator A5081955736 @default.
- W4213203437 date "2022-03-01" @default.
- W4213203437 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W4213203437 title "Do gender differences exist in letters of recommendation for gynecology surgical fellowship applicants?" @default.
- W4213203437 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.12.046" @default.
- W4213203437 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
- W4213203437 type Work @default.
- W4213203437 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W4213203437 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5012677026 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5013560905 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5020971510 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5027773836 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5035693037 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5063976447 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5066475180 @default.
- W4213203437 hasAuthorship W4213203437A5081955736 @default.
- W4213203437 hasBestOaLocation W42132034371 @default.
- W4213203437 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
- W4213203437 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W4213203437 hasConceptScore W4213203437C512399662 @default.
- W4213203437 hasConceptScore W4213203437C71924100 @default.
- W4213203437 hasIssue "3" @default.
- W4213203437 hasLocation W42132034371 @default.
- W4213203437 hasOpenAccess W4213203437 @default.
- W4213203437 hasPrimaryLocation W42132034371 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
- W4213203437 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
- W4213203437 hasVolume "226" @default.
- W4213203437 isParatext "false" @default.
- W4213203437 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W4213203437 workType "article" @default.