Wood, Malissa J.

ImportanceInternal medicine residents’ professional development preferences were discordant with their perceptions of cardiology in a survey circulated a decade ago; no contemporary data exist. This information is important for effective recruitment and retention of a highly talented and diverse future cardiology workforce.ObjectiveTo identify residents’ professional development preferences and cardiology perceptions, in relation to specialty choice, and compare the findings with those from a decade prior.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe original survey from the 2010 study was updated and sent to US internal medicine programs. Respondents (ie, internal medicine residents) rated 38 professional development preferences and 20 cardiology perceptions. Data were collected in 2020 and compared with survey results from the prior 2010 study. Multivariable models were created for specialty choice using scaled independent variables dichotomized using the top 2 options; categorical variables were recoded into binary variables for analysis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMultivariable models were used to determine the association of demographic characterisitcs and survey responses with prospective career choice. Responses were examined by total group, by gender, by self-reported consideration of entering cardiology as a profession, and by comparison with a decade prior both as a group and by gender.ResultsA total of 840 residents (mean [SD] age, 29.24 [2.82] years; 49.8% male; 55.4% White) completed the survey. The survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) for some of the questions, with additional questions on demographic characteristics. The most important professional development preferences by descending Likert score were as follows: positive role models (4.56), stimulating career (3.81), and family friendly (3.78). The cardiology perception statements with the highest agreement were as follows: interferes with family life during training (3.93) and having met positive role models or having positive views of cardiovascular disease as a topic (3.85). Multivariable analysis yielded a 22-element model predicting cardiology as career choice. Compared with the 2010 survey, the findings of this survey indicated increased importance of work-life balance components for both male and female residents, with a greater change in male residents. Contemporary residents were more likely than their predecessors to agree with negative perceptions of cardiology.Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study found that both male and female residents place a high value on support for optimal work-life balance; these preferences have intensified over the past decade and factor into career choice. Negative perceptions of cardiology persist and, in some aspects, are worsening. Improving the culture of cardiology may make this specialty a more attractive career choice for all.

Background The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high‐impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods and Results All manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high‐impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology , Circulation , JAMA Cardiology , and European Heart Journal ) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co‐first, senior, and co‐senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID‐19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P <0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts ( P =0.04). Conclusions Representation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID‐19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID‐19‐related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender‐disparate impacts of COVID‐19 on academic careers is critical.