Gender disparity remains prevalent in the field of academic surgery with an under-representation of women at senior leadership ranks. A wide variety of causes are reported to contribute to this gender-based discrimination but a current quantitative analysis in the US has significant importance. This cross-sectional study aims to document gender disparity in academic and leadership positions in surgery as well as its relationship with scholarly productivity. The American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), was used to identify General Surgery programs. Each institution's website was used to identify its faculty's primary profiles for data collection. Individuals with an MD or DO, and an academic ranking of Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor were included. Academic productivity was quantified by recording H-index, number of publications, number of citations, and years of active research of a physician. All statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Statistics version 20.0. A total of 144 academic programs were including in our analysis constituting 4085 surgeons, only one-fifth (n = 873, 21%) of which were women. Furthermore, only 19% of all leadership positions were assumed by female surgeons. Leadership positions and academic rank correlated significantly with increasing research productivity. The difference in H-index between genders was statistically significant (P < 0.05) with men possessing a higher median for H-index [13] than women [9]. Transplantation Surgery [17] had the highest median H-indices for female surgeons. Male surgeons (n = 18) were twice as likely to be Departmental Chairs as their female counterparts (n = 9). However, female surgical oncologists held the highest proportion of leadership positions (31%). A significant gender-based disparity was found in leadership positions and academic ranks. Research productivity appeared to be integral for academic and leadership appointments. Institution-level measures that enhance support, mentorship, and sponsorship for women are imperative to achieve overall parity in general surgery.

Little is known about whether patients’ socioeconomic status influences their access to elective general surgery in Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between socioeconomic status and wait times for elective general surgery. Analysis of prospectively recruited participants’ data. The setting was six hospitals in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, a geographically defined region that includes Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Participants had elective general surgery between October 2013 and April 2017, community dwelling, aged 19 years or older and could complete survey forms. The outcome measure was wait time, defined as the number of weeks between being registered for elective general surgery and surgery date. One thousand three hundred twenty elective general surgery participants were included in the study. The response rate among eligible patients was 53%. Regression analyses found no statistically significant association between patients’ wait time with SES, adjusting for health status, cancer status, surgical priority level, comorbidity burden and demographic characteristics. Participants with proven or suspected cancer status had shorter waits relative to participants waiting for surgery for benign conditions. Participants with at least one comorbidity tended to experience shorter waits of approximately 5 weeks (p < 0.01). Pre-operative pain or depression/anxiety were not associated with shorter wait times. Although this study found no relationship between SES and surgical wait time for elective general surgeries in the study hospitals, patients in lower SES categories reported worse health when assigned to the surgical queue.

Introduction: The Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GQLI) is used to measure domains of health and symptoms among people with gastrointestinal disorders. The objective of this study is to calculate the smallest change in the GQLI that is perceived by patients as meaningful among a sample of English-speaking adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of symptomatic gallbladder disease. Materials and methods: The study is based on retrospective analyses of a sample of participants completing the GQLI and the EQ-5D(3L) preoperatively and six months postoperatively in Vancouver, Canada. Patients are excluded if they are less than 19 years of age, cannot communicate in English, or reside in a long-term care facility. The MID is calculated for the GQLI’s domains using distribution and anchor-based methods. Results: Among eligible patients, the participation rate was 51%. The estimated MID for the overall GQLI value ranged between 4.32 and 11.44. There were no statistically significant differences in the GQLI’s MID values between sexes or age subgroups. There were statistically significant differences in the GQLI’s MID values by baseline health status. Discussion: This study should provide some comfort that the MID values used in discussing change in health and symptoms with elective cholecystectomy patients are robust to sex. Although the sample size may have been inadequate for age-based analyses, the study found large differences in MID values between age subgroups. Statistically significant differences in MID values based on preoperative health supports reporting MID values separately by baseline value. Further research should explore whether age-based differences in MID values exist using larger samples.