Gender bias in academic medicine: a resumé study

BACKGROUND: Minimising the effects of unconscious bias in selection for clinical academic training is essential to ensure that allocation of training posts is based on merit. We looked at the effect of anonymising applications to a training programme for junior doctors on the scores of the applications and on gender balance; and whether female candidates were more likely to seek gender-concordant mentors. METHODS: Applications to the training programme were reviewed and scored independently by reviewers who received either an anonymised or named copy. Scores were compared using a paired t-test, and differences in scores compared by gender. The gender of named supervisors for male and female candidates was compared. RESULTS: Scores of 101 applications were reviewed. When their identity was known, male candidates scored 1.72% higher and female candidates scored 0.74% higher, but these findings were not statistically significant (p value = 0.279 and 0.579). Following introduction of anonymisation, the proportion of successful female candidates increased from 27 to 46%. Female candidates were more likely to name a female supervisor compared to male (41% vs. 25% of supervisors). CONCLUSIONS: Anonymising applications did not significantly change scores, although gender balance improved. Gender-concordant mentoring initiatives should consider effects on mentors as well as mentees.