Cross-sectional study investigates gender distribution in academic ophthalmology, revealing disparities in ranks and positions.
This study aims to investigate the gender difference of ophthalmologists among academic positions in Japanese medical schools. An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted. We performed a comprehensive survey assessing the gender distribution of faculty members in the departments of ophthalmology at Japanese medical schools. During the period of November 1 to 15, 2023, data were gathered from the websites of all ophthalmology departments and their affiliated hospitals. Faculty gender was determined primarily through analysis of first names and photographs when available. The gender, academic position, and employment status (full-time or part-time) of each faculty member were recorded. The study encompassed 1574 faculty members in 81 ophthalmology departments, including 453 (28.8%) females and 1121 (71.2%) males. The proportion of females varied across different academic positions, with 9.9% among professors, 21.9% among associate professors, 30.5% among lecturers, and 36.7% among research associates. There was a significant difference in the distribution of academic ranks among genders ( P <.001). The odds of becoming professors were 4.41 times higher for males than for females ( P <.001). The percentage of full-time and part-time positions did not differ significantly between genders overall; however, a higher percentage of female research associates worked part-time (53.2%) compared to full-time (35.4%; P = .0169). When comparing departments by the gender of their chair professors, we found that the percentage of female faculty was higher in departments with female chairs than in those with male chairs: 23.1% versus 7.7% among professors and 45.5% versus 20.2% among associate professors, respectively. The academic ranks within ophthalmology departments in Japanese medical schools are predominantly occupied by males, particularly in senior positions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iwasaki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: