The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess possible explanations for the finding that the percentage of women medical school faculty members holding associate or full professor rank remains well below the percentage of men. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of physician faculty of US medical schools using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database. SUBJECTS: Surveyed were 153 women and 263 men first appointed between 1979 and 1981, matched for institutions of original faculty appointment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Academic rank achieved, career preparation, academic resources at first appointment, familial responsibilities, and academic productivity. RESULTS: After a mean of 11 years on a medical school faculty, 59% of women compared with 83% of men had achieved associate or full professor rank, and 5% of women compared with 23% of men had achieved full professor rank. Women and men reported similar preparation for an academic career, but women began their careers with fewer academic resources. The number of children was not associated with rank achieved. Women worked about 10% fewer hours per week and had authored fewer publications. After adjustment for productivity factors, women remained less likely to be associate or full professors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.66) or to achieve full professor rank (adjusted OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63). Based on the AAMC database, 50% of both women and men originally appointed as faculty members between 1979 and 1981 had left academic medicine by 1991. CONCLUSION: Women physician medical school faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Gender differences in rank achieved are not explained by productivity or by differential attrition from academic medicine.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective
Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., Tarbell, N. J., & Hylek, E. M. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa053910 · Cited by 870
Sex Differences in Physician Salary in US Public Medical Schools
Jena, A. B., Olenski, A. R., & Blumenthal, D. M. (2016) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3284 · Cited by 641
Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
Lerchenmueller, M. J., Sorenson, O., & Jena, A. B. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l6573 · Cited by 211
Gender comparisons of medical students' psychosocial profiles
Hojat, M., Glaser, K., Xu, G., Veloski, J. J., & Christian, E. B. (1999) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00331.x · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Tesch, B. J.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-04-05
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1022
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4235739614
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.273.13.1022
- The paper
- Tesch, B. J. (1995). Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.273.13.1022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.