BACKGROUND: Although there has been a considerable increase in the representation of women in medicine, a gender gap still exists with regard to leadership positions. This gender discrepancy has been identified in the field of anesthesiology, in terms of first and senior authorship, as well as in general composition of editorial boards in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia. The goal of this study is to examine the current representation of women in editorial boards of anesthesia journals with respect to the hierarchy of different editorial positions and to assess whether there has been improvement toward equity in recent years. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for anesthesiology journals indexed in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank in May 2020. The editorial boards of the top 20 journals by impact factor were analyzed. Editorial board members were categorized based on their title. Gender was assigned using images or pronouns on research databases or hospital-affiliated websites. The percentage of women within each category was calculated. When available, the year the editors obtained their medical degree was collected. A binomial proportion test was used to analyze the distribution of women overall and among editorial roles, compared to the proportion of women anesthesiologists (26%). A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare time since medical degree between genders. Additionally, women representation in anesthesiology editorial boards in 2020 was compared to 2010. RESULTS: A total of 19 journals were included in this study, as 1 journal did not disclose editorial board membership. Overall, women occupied 18% of all editorial board positions. All editors-in-chief and assistant/associate/deputy editors-in-chief were men. Women consisted of 17.1% of executive/section/senior editors, 17.9% of editors, and 20.6% of associate/assistant editors. There were significantly fewer women editorial board members than the percentage of women anesthesiologists (18% vs 26%; P < .001). Editorial boards from 2010 were available for 14 journals, and of these journals, women comprised 12% of editorial board members in 2010 compared to 19% in 2020 (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in anesthesiology journals, women are underrepresented at all editorial levels, especially at higher levels. As editorial boards have a significant impact on which articles are published by a journal and thereby significant influence on the specialty as a whole, the lack of gender equity in editorial boards should be addressed.

(Anesth Analg. 2020;130:1296–1302) Over the last 2 decades, rates of women entering medical school have risen to near parity with men. However, despite gender equivalence in medical school enrollment, rates of female anesthesiologists lag severely behind. Though data are lacking in anesthesiology, causes of the leadership and specialty gaps for surgical residencies have been reviewed in recent publications, finding potential deterrents such as changing career plans due to motherhood, lack of formally institutionalized maternity leave policies, gender discrimination, perceived stigma associated with pregnancy, and perceived incompatibility of surgery with rewarding family life. In congruence with these findings for surgery, a study of major medical specialties determined anesthesiology to have the highest rate of maternal discrimination. The aim of this study was to survey women members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) to better understand motherhood-related factors associated with women’s likelihood to recommend against a career in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: A gender-based compensation gap among physicians is well documented. Even after adjusting for age, experience, work hours, productivity, and academic rank, the gender gap remained and widened over the course of a physician’s career. This study aimed to examine if a significant gender pay gap still existed for anesthesiologists in the United States. METHODS: In 2018, we surveyed 28,812 physician members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists to assess the association of compensation with gender and to identify possible causes of wage disparities. Gender was the primary variable examined in the model, and compensation by gender was the primary outcome. Compensation was defined as the amount reported as direct compensation on a W-2, 1099, or K-1, plus all voluntary salary reductions (eg, 401[k], health insurance). The survey directed respondents to include salary, bonuses, incentive payments, research stipends, honoraria, and distribution of profits to employees. Respondents had the option of providing a point estimate of their compensation or selecting a range in $50,000 increments. Potential confounding variables that could affect compensation were identified based on a scoping literature review and the consensus expertise of the authors. We fitted a generalized ordinal logistic regression with 7 ranges of compensation. For the sensitivity analyses, we used linear regressions of log-transformed compensation based on respondent point estimates and imputed values. RESULTS: The final analytic sample consisted of 2081 observations (response rate, 7.2%). This sample represented a higher percentage of women and younger physicians compared to the demographic makeup of anesthesiologists in the United States. The adjusted odds ratio associated with gender equal to woman was an estimated 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.53), indicating that for a given compensation range, women had a 56% lower odds than men of being in a higher compensation range. Sensitivity analyses found the relative percentage difference in compensation for women compared to men ranged from −8.3 to −8.9. In the sensitivity analysis based on the subset of respondents (n = 1036) who provided a point estimate of compensation, the relative percentage difference (−8.3%; 95% confidence interval, −4.7 to −11.7) reflected a $32,617 lower compensation for women than men, holding other covariates at their means. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation for anesthesiologists showed a significant pay gap that was associated with gender even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, including age, hours worked, geographic practice region, practice type, position, and job selection criteria.