SPEAKers at the National Society of Hospital Medicine Meeting: A Follow-UP Study of Gender Equity for Conference Speakers from 2015 to 2019. The SPEAK UP Study
Women continue to be underrepresented as speakers at national conferences, and research has shown similar trends in hospital medicine. The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Annual Meeting has historically had an open call peer review process for workshop speakers and, in 2019, expanded the process for didactic speakers. We aimed to assess the overall conference trends for women speakers and whether the systematic processes in recruitment procedures (ie, open call) resulted in improved representation of women speakers. We also sought to understand how the proportion of women speakers might affect overall scores of the conference. From 2015 to 2019, the overall representation of women speakers increased, as did evaluation scores during the same time period. When selection processes included the open call peer review process, there were higher proportions of women speakers. An open call process with peer review for speakers may be a systematic process that national meetings could replicate to reduce gender inequities.
© 2020 Society of Hospital Medicine
Open Call Process
We defined the “open call process” (referred to as “open call” here forward) as the process utilized by SHM that includes the following two components: (1) advertisements to members of SHM and to the medical community at large through a variety of mechanisms including emails, websites, and social media outlets and (2) an online submission process that includes names of proposed speakers and their topic and, in the case of workshops, session objectives as well as an outline of the proposed workshop. SHM committees may also submit suggestions for topics and speakers. Annual Conference Committee members then review and rate submissions on the categories of topic, organization and clarity, objectives, and speaker qualifications (with a focus on institutional, geographic, and gender diversity). Scores are assigned from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best score) for each category and a section for comments is available. All submissions are also evaluated by the course director.
After initial committee reviews, scores with marked reviewer discrepancies are rereviewed and discussed by the committee and course director. A cutoff score is then calculated with proposals falling below the cutoff threshold omitted from further consideration. Weekly calls are then focused on subcategories (ie tracks) with emphasis on clinical and educational content. Each of the tracks have a subcommittee with track leads to curate the best content first and then focus on final speaker selection. More recently, templates are shared with the track leads that include a location to call out gender and institutional diversity. Weekly calls are held to hone the content and determine the speakers.
For the purposes of this study, when the above process was not used, the authors refer to it as “closed call.” Closed call processes do not typically involve open invitations or a peer review process. (Table)
Gender
Gender was assigned based on the speaker’s self-identification by the pronouns used in their biography submitted to the conference or on their institutional website or other websites where the speaker was referenced. Persons using she/her/hers pronouns were noted as women and persons using he/him/his were noted as men. For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized gender as binary (ie woman/man) given the limited information we had from online sources.
ANALYSIS
REDCap, a secure, Web-based application for building and managing online survey and databases, was used to collect and manage all study data.9
All analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 8.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) using retrospectively collected data. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the proportion of women speakers from 2015 to 2019. A chi-square test was used to assess the proportion of women speakers for open call processes versus that seen with closed call. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate annual conference evaluation scores from 2015 to 2019. Either numbers with proportions or means with standard deviations have been reported. Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons was applied, with a P < .008 considered statistically significant.
