INTRODUCTION: Health disparities are well documented in the field of obstetrics and gynecology as highlighted by the current maternal mortality crisis. While research is pivotal to understanding the underlying causes of these disparities, minorities have traditionally been underrepresented in clinical studies. The objective of this study was to investigate trends in racial and ethnic reporting in women’s health research. Our secondary objective was to examine changes in reporting over the last decade. METHODS: A systematic review of original research articles from three high-impact obstetrics and gynecology journals (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (AJOG) Fertility & Sterility, and Obstetrics & Gynecology) was performed. Research articles were screened for the reporting of race/ethnicity and method of documenting data. Data were collected at 2- year timepoints, 2009 and 2019, for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1,440 articles (AJOG n=514, Fertility & Sterility n=551, and Obstetrics & Gynecology n=375) were included and analyzed. Overall, race and ethnicity data were reported in 37.5% and 7.7% of research articles respectively. Only 2.2% of articles included both race and ethnicity data. There was a significant difference in the reporting of race (32.6% in 2009 vs. 54.8% in 2019, P<.05) and ethnicity (6.4% in 2009 vs. 10.1% in 2019, P<.05) data over the 10-year time span. CONCLUSION: The reporting of race/ethnicity is inconsistent and often lacking in women’s health literature. When reported, there is significant heterogeneity in how demographic data is documented. Although there have been some improvements in the last decade, standardized reporting could allow clinicians to be more informed of the generalizability of novel research findings.

Background: Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for evaluating intrauterine pathology. The majority of physicians currently perform hysteroscopy in the operating room. Lack of training has been cited as a barrier to performing office hysteroscopy; however, resident training in office hysteroscopy has not yet been evaluated.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was performed. A validated 17 question survey tool was sent to 297 program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs for distribution to their residents. The survey utilized a Likert scale to assess resident interest in learning office hysteroscopy, satisfaction in training, and perceived self-efficacy to perform office hysteroscopy independently upon graduation.Results: Two hundred and ninety-three obstetrics and gynecology residents responded. Of the respondents, 26.3% reported receiving training in office hysteroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference in training among postgraduate years or program regions. A greater proportion of male residents received training when compared to female residents (42.9% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.019). Ninety-four percent of residents reported interest in learning office hysteroscopy. Satisfaction with hysteroscopy training in the operating room versus the office was 91.1% vs. 11.3% respectively. Of the fourth-year residents, 17.4% felt they could perform office hysteroscopy independently upon graduation and 14.5% reported feeling comfortable performing the procedure. Conclusions:Residency training in office hysteroscopy is lacking and residents are unprepared to perform the procedure after graduation. Enhanced residency training in office hysteroscopy would likely improve resident comfort and ability to perform office hysteroscopy in practice.