Culminating Experience in Women’s Health Research Anna Kaatz

1. Culminating Experience in Women’s Health Research Anna Kaatz UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health MPH Final Presentation November 11, 2009

2. Outline • Background • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion • Acknowledgments

3. 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

4. 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.

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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.