Unveiling Gender Disparity: A Closer Look at Speaker Representation at International Aesthetic Medicine Conferences

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2024;17(9):25–27.

by Emmaline Ashley, MBBChBAO, MCh, BA, ProfCertDerm, PgDipAes;
Priyanka Chadha, MBBS, BSc, DPMSA, MRCS, MSc; and Lara Watson, BM, BSc, BMedSci, MRCS, BDS

Drs. Ashley, Chadha, and Watson are with Acquisition Aesthetics in London, United Kingdom.

FUNDING: No funding was provided for this article.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

ABSTRACT: Introduction. Despite some recent progress, gender disparity is a well-documented and persistent problem at medical professional conferences, with women being consistently underrepresented.¹ This study examines the representation of speakers at international aesthetic medicine conferences, an area previously unexplored in the literature.

Methodology. An analysis of speaker composition was conducted of three international aesthetic medicine conferences over the past three years: the Aesthetics & Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress (AMWC), the International Master Course on Aging Science (IMCAS) World Congress, and the Facial Aesthetic Conference and Exhibition (FACE).

Results. Of the 5,993 clinical lectures amongst 189 sessions over three years, 66.34 percent were given by male speakers and 33.66 percent by female speakers. The gender disparity remained consistent over the three-year period reviewed, with no upward trend. Symposiums with all-male panels consisted of 26.4 percent of the total sessions.

Conclusion. The study highlights an ongoing gender imbalance at international aesthetic medicine conferences. These disparities have broad and significant implications in terms of inequalities in employment and earnings as well as the perpetuated societal inequalities faced by women. The aesthetic medicine community should therefore consider it a priority to acknowledge and address this issue by supporting improved representation of women at key events and congresses amongst other initiatives to drive positive change.

Keywords: Gender bias, conferences and congresses, aesthetics, gender issues, clinical conference

Introduction

It is well-documented in the literature that women are consistently underrepresented as invited speakers to medical conferences across a variety of specialties.^1–17 While there have been some improvements over the past decade, women still face significant inequalities in representation, with some conferences posting preliminary programs with less than 50 percent invited female speakers.^2,18  Women are particularly underrepresented in more prestigious speaking roles, such as plenary or keynote sessions.^9,19 No study has yet examined the diversity of invited speakers at aesthetic medical conferences over time. We were interested as to whether the documented gender disparity elsewhere in medicine would hold true for international medical aesthetic congresses.

Methods 

We conducted an analysis of three international aesthetic medicine conferences over the past three years: the Aesthetics & Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress (AMWC), the International Master Course on Aging Science (IMCAS) World Congress, and the Facial Aesthetic Conference and Exhibition (FACE). Of note, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, IMCAS and AMWC occurred virtually in 2021, while FACE did not take place in 2020 or 2021. FACE data from 2019 was used instead. The program for each included conference was obtained from the conference website. Meeting programs were reviewed, and abstracts and poster presentations were excluded.

Inclusion criteria comprised of any speaker, regardless of professional qualifications (medical or non-medical), who presented at both main meetings and industry-sponsored symposiums. A binary gender was assigned to individuals based on either their full name, photograph, or familiarity with the speaker. If there was any ambiguity, an online search was completed to find a biography of the speaker in question. A second independent researcher conducted an audit of approximately 10 percent (n=600) of the lectures to ensure accuracy of data extraction. 

Results 

Of the 5,993 conference lectures, 66.34 percent were male speakers and 33.66 percent were female. In other words, men outnumbered women as invited lecturers by an approximate ratio of 2:1, consistent with what has been described in previous literature.¹ Overall, this general trend held true year by year, with 2023 congresses having 65.91 percent male speakers compared to 34.09 percent female speakers, 66.75 percent male to 33.25 percent female speakers in 2022, and 66.46 percent male to 33.54 percent in 2021. Of note, 26.4 percent of symposia contained all-male panels. This demonstrates a persistent issue regarding female representation at these medical aesthetic congresses.

Discussion  

Aesthetics is a medical specialty that is, arguably, incredibly female-focused. A reported 86.1 to 86.9 percent of patients seeking non-surgical facial aesthetics are women.^20,21  There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal benchmark to determine the fair representation of female speakers at international congresses. Factors under consideration include the proportion of women working in a specialty, their membership in professional societies, or their presence as conference attendees.²²  Based on the currently available data, on all of the preceding benchmarks, women comprise at least 50 percent, if not more, of the proportion. Hamilton Fraser Cosmetic Insurance’s Annual Industry Survey in 2020 revealed that 78 percent of practitioners working in the United Kingdom were female.²³ The membership survey of the British College of Aesthetic Medicine indicates a fairly equal split between female and male practicing aesthetic doctors.²⁴

Multiple factors have been posited to contribute to the observed gender disparity in speaker selection. One study suggested that there may be gender bias in the evaluation and selection of speakers.²⁵ To address gender disparity, more women should be appointed to speaker invitation and organizing committees.^26,27  When examining the gender breakdown of organizing committees for the congresses in questions, they consisted on average of 77.41 percent male members and 22.59 percent female members. There is evidence that a higher number of women in convening committees mean that women are more likely to be invited to speak.^27,28 Having even one female member correlated to a higher proportion of female speakers and reduced likelihood of all-male panels.²⁸

Other factors described in the literature include the lack of female role models and mentors in academic medicine.^6,11,26 Conference organizers are often motivated to source speakers who are renowned as academics or in leadership positions, and currently men predominate in these roles.^6,11,26 However, participation in meetings as a speaker is a factor of great importance in academic advancement, creating a perpetuating cycle.²⁸ Invitations to speak at national and international stages are key professional events. They present a form of external validation and are opportunities for sharing research findings, gaining recognition in the field, and networking with colleagues who may be key to future professional opportunites.²⁸ 

Additionally, significant family and domestic responsibilities may also contribute to this gender disparity. Conferences and events that are well-resourced may consider providing family rooms, childcare options, or live steaming, in order to improve accessibility to women for whom it may otherwise be impractical to attend.²²

Another factor is the lower visibility of women in certain medical fields, including the closely linked sector of plastic surgery.⁶ In general, regardless of gender, the stages at international congresses are dominated by plastic surgeons (26.81%), dermatologists (31.61%), and aesthetic physicians (18.77%), with other medical specialities like maxillofacial surgery, oculoplastics, gynocology, and urology forming less than 1 to 3 percent. This probably reflects that in many countries beyond the UK, injectable treatments exist primarily in the remit of medical doctors. However, it is important to acknowledge that in the UK, the aesthetics landscape is unique and includes a cohort of dental surgeons, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals who also practice aesthetics. This diverse range of medical specialists, while specific to the UK, is not reflected in the international community, with only 1.08 percent of speakers being dentists or dental surgeons, and 0.24 percent of speakers consisting of nurses. Of note, another 15 percent of speakers at the international congresses examined consisted of industry representatives, marketing or business specialists, and scientific researchers.   

Conclusion

The gender imbalance in speaker selection has potential consequences within medicine. It hinders the professional development and visibility of female experts, limiting their opportunities for career advancement and recognition.^1,11 The lack of female representation may hamper the aspirations of professionals, who do not find adequate role models or feel encouraged to pursue careers in academic medicine.⁹ This disparity in representation also deprives conferences of diverse perspectives.²² A diverse medical academic workforce allows for more inclusive approaches to training and education, as well as improved outcomes and satisfaction for patient groups.^9,29,30

Efforts should be made to acknowledge and address the gender imbalance. Implementing transparent and inclusive speaker selection processes, free from implicit biases, can help ensure fair representation. These policies should be visible and easily accessible.²² Efforts should be made to promote and support female researchers and professionals in aesthetic medicine through mentorship programs, networking opportunities, and leadership development initiatives. Additionally, conference organizers should prioritize the formation of diverse and inclusive panels, embracing a broad range of perspectives and expertise.

It is important to recognize that gender bias and disparities in medicine are systemic issues that extend beyond any particular specialty, including aesthetic medicine. These disparities have broad and significant implications in terms of inequalities in employment and earnings as well as the perpetuated societal inequalities faced by women. The aesthetic medicine community should therefore consider it a priority to acknowledge and address this issue by supporting improved representation of women at key events and congresses amongst other initiatives to drive positive change.

References

1. Arora A, Kaur Y, Dossa F, et al. Proportion of female speakers at academic medical conferences across multiple specialties and regions. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2018127-e.
2. Ruzycki SM, Fletcher S, Earp M, et al. Trends in the proportion of female speakers at medical conferences in the United States and in Canada, 2007 to 2017. Jama Netw Open. 2019;2(4):e192103.
3. Mehta S, Rose L, Cook DJ, et al. The speaker gender gap at critical care conferences. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):991–996.
4. Davids JS, Lyu H, Hoang CM, et al. Female representation and implicit gender bias at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ Annual Scientific and Tripartite Meeting. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(3):357–362.
5. Carley S, Carden RS, Riley R, et al. Are there too few women presenting at emergency medicine conferences?. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(10):681–683.
6. Lockhart KR, Blatt A. We have cracked the ceiling, but how long must we walk on broken glass? Addressing the pitfalls confronting women in surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2021;91(9):1647–1649.
7. Monga K, Liew JW. Gender gap in rheumatology: speaker representation at annual conferences. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(11):e238. 
8. Heaps S, Kodan A, Malik R. Continued gender imbalance on panels at urology meetings. BJU Int. 2023;131(4):437–439.
9. Gamage I, Bolland MJ, Sadler L, et al. Diversity of invited speakers at endocrinology conferences. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2022;96(6):907–913.
10. Partiali B, Oska S, Touriel R, et al. Gender disparity in speakers at a major academic emergency medicine conference. Emerg Med J. 2021 May;38(5):379–380.
11. D’Souza RS, Pilitsis JG, Langford B, et al. Speaker gender representation at the North American Neuromodulation Society Annual Meeting (2017–2021): have we made progress in closing the gender gap? J Pain Res. 2022;15:3423–3432.
12. Raven LM, McCormack A. Female representation: Australian diabetes and endocrinology societies. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:842909.
13. Martorell LB, Silva AM, Leles CR, et al. Gender differences among dentistry conference speakers in Brazil. Saúde Em Debate. 2021;45(spe1):73–82.
14. Sebbane S, Bailly S, Lambert W-C, et al. Representation of women at American Psychiatric Association Annual Meetings over 10 years (Between 2009 and 2019). PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261058.
15. Davic A, Carey ET, Lambert E, et al. Disparity in gender representation of speakers at national emergency medical services conferences: a current assessment and proposed path forward. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021;36(4):445–449.
16. Silva MLG, Teoh L. Each for equal: gender inequity in dentistry in Australia. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2021;6(3):311–316.
17. Durani U, Duma N, Slostad JA, et al. What’s in a name? A gender-based analysis of speaker introductions at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting. Blood. 134(Supplement_1):3411–3411.
18. Klein RS, Voskuhl RR, Segal BM, et al. Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity. Nat Immunol. 2017;18(5):475–478.
19. McDermott M, Burke JF, McCalpin HJ, et al. Women and men were proportionally represented among speakers at major national neurology conferences in 2017. bioRxiv. 10.1101/866160.
20. Ramirez SPB, Scherz G, Smith H. Characteristics of patients seeking and proceeding with non-surgical facial aesthetic procedures. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2021;14:197–207.
21. Maisel A, Waldman A, Furlan K, et al. Self-reported patient motivations for seeking cosmetic procedures. JAMA dermatology. 2018;154(10):1167–1174.
22. Martin JL. Ten simple rules to achieve conference speaker gender balance. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(11):e1003903.
23. Hamilton Fraser Cosmetic Insurance. Annual Industry Survey. 2020. https://www.hamiltonfraser.co.uk/content-hub/annual-survey
24. British College of Aesthetic Medicine. BCAM Annual Clinical Review Report Summary 2022. 2022. https://bcam.ac.uk/media/news/33/bcam_2022_annual_clinical_review/
25. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus SE, et al. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):531–540.
26. Boiko JR, Anderson A, Gordon R. Representation of women among academic grand rounds speakers. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):722–724.
27. Lithgow K, Earp M, Bharwani A, et al. Association Between the proportion of women on a conference planning committee and the proportion of women speakers at medical conferences. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e200677.
28. Casadevall A, Handelsman J. The presence of female conveners correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. mBio. 2014;5(1):e00846-13.
29. Soto-Greene M, Culbreath K, Guzman DE, et al. Diversity and inclusion in the academic medicine workforce: encouraging medical students and residents to consider academic careers. MedEdPORTAL. 2018;14:10689.
30. Walker KO, Moreno G, Grumbach K. The association among specialty, race, ethnicity, and practice location among California physicians in diverse specialties. J Natl Med Assoc. 2012;104(1–2):46–52.