For Peer Review Unleashing talent in mental health sciences: gender equality at the top Journal: BJPsych Manuscript ID BJPsych-18-0670 Manuscript Type: Editorial Date Submitted by the Author: 06-Jul-2018 Complete List of Authors: Breedvelt, Josefien; Mental Health Foundation, Research Rowe, Sarah ; University College London, Division of Psychiatry Bowden-Jones, Henrietta; CNWL Foundation Trust, National Problem Gambling Clinic Shridhar, Sunita; NHS Havering CCG, Maylands Practice Lovett, Kate; royal college of psychiatrists, College Officers Bockting, Claudi; AMC, Department of Psychiatry Lingford-Hughes, Anne; Imperial College London, Centre for Psychiatry Strathdee, Geraldine; NHS England, NHS Improvement Tracy, Derek; Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, AMH; Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, Keywords: Gender, Equality, Psychiatry, Workforce Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review Unleashing talent in mental health sciences: gender equality at the top Josefien J F Breedvelt*, Sarah Rowe, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Sunita Shridhar, Kate Lovett, Claudi Bockting, Anne-Lingford Hughes, Geraldine Strathdee, Derek K Tracy Author affiliations Ms Josefien J F Breedvelt MSc, The Mental Health Foundation, London Dr Sarah Rowe PhD, University College London Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones FRCPsych, CNWL Foundation Trust, London Dr Sunita Shridhar MBBS, Maylands Practice, Essex Dr Kate Lovett FRCPsych, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London Professor Claudi L H Bockting PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Department of Psychiatry, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Professor Anne-Lingford Hughes PhD, Imperial College London. Professor Geraldine Strathdee FRCPsych, NHS Improvement. Dr Derek K Tracy FRCPsych, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust London and King’s College London *Author for correspondence: Ms Josefien Breedvelt, the Mental Health Foundation, London. jbreedvelt@mentalhealth.org.uk Summary Society is undergoing a shift in gender politics. Science and medicine are part of this conversation, not least as women’s representation – and pay - continues to drop as one progresses through more senior academic and clinical levels. Naming and redressing these inequalities needs to be a priority for us all. Main article 2018 is the centenary of women’s suffrage in the UK. This sits in the contemporary landscape of the #MeToo movement, debate on the persisting gender pay gap and representation of women at board level. Where are we in science, medicine, and psychiatry? A recent podcast recorded at the Royal College of Psychiatrists (1) hosted academics, clinicians, and policy advisors discussing work by Carter et al. (2) on women in academic environments. That paper noted how women were less likely than men to ask questions at seminars and conferences. It opened podcast conversations on participants’ reflections and perceptions of this, and the related ethos and culture of their employers. This matters enormously. Women were described as “literally less visible” by Carter and colleagues, and it appears to map onto career progression. Women are continuing to outnumber men at tertiary education, but only in more junior positions. In Europe, across all Page 1 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review academic subjects they account for: 59% of undergraduates, 47% of PhD graduates, 45% of fixed-term contract postdoctoral researchers, 37% of junior and 21% of senior faculty positions (3). In the UK, women account for one fifth of overall professorship and head of institution positions (4). The issue is particularly problematic in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), where women have historically been under- represented; Hewlitt et al. (5) finding that leave rates for women in these subjects peak about 10 years into their careers. Within academic medicine, the picture has been improving over the past decade, though there is variation by specialty. Primary care has the highest rate of women clinical academics (about 46%); at about 30%, psychiatry is not the worst (surgery is), but sits just about in the top half, above radiology and below paediatrics (6). The academic output of women has been shown to be less often cited, and they suffer from underrepresentation in authorship (7-9). A recent paper in Nature found an inverse relationship between journal impact factor and women who were either first or last author (10). It is not clear which factors are at play; there are the aforementioned issues of fewer women in senior academic positions, but also concern about reviewer bias. There is mixed evidence about the effects of double blind reviewing, and concern that even with such measures authors can often be identified (11). In clinical life in the UK we see a similar picture. Over half of Foundation Doctors are women, dropping to 36% at Consultant level (12); at 43% this is somewhat better specifically in Psychiatry, and this represents an increase of 3% over the last 5 years. However, this figure hides considerable variation between clinical subspecialties: women make up about 37% of consultants in Forensic psychiatry, whereas within child and adolescent mental health this climbs to approximately 64%. It is important to note that non- training, non-consultant grades make up 24% of medical workforce within psychiatry, where women continue to be over-represented at 54% (13). This report does not include linked data on ethnicity. Given the known impact of intersectionality on women’s opportunities this missing data is clearly crucial for further research in identifying areas for targeting policy. We know that psychiatry relies heavily on international medical graduates, 65% of whom are BME. GMC data show 37% of the overall psychiatry medical workforce are from BME backgrounds (14). Full equality by numbers (forgetting whole time equivalents) is estimated to take another two decades (12). In primary care women account for more than 50% of the workforce, but only 16% of CCG Chairs (12, 15). The ‘leaky pipeline’ persists, with reducing women representation with seniority. A loss of talent and diversity, a loss to the individuals concerned, and a loss to academic and clinical institutions. In management and leadership roles, implicit and explicit bias may be an issue, with different attributes and skills frequently ascribed to men and women (16). In evaluations and reference letters, the language used is often less favourable to women (17), who are frequently lauded for their ‘hard work’ rather than their ‘brilliance’ (18,19). It has been argued that women more commonly take on ‘less rewarded’ roles such as sitting on committees, having organizational responsibilities, mentoring others, and teaching. These Page 2 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review duties receive less acknowledgement and take time away from other important areas, hindering promotion (20). The truth remains that even in 2018, women are far more likely to take on a ‘double shift’, having the bulk of domestic responsibilities as well as a professional life (21). Differences are also reflected in pay. Across the whole NHS there is an overall pay gap of 8.6% in favour of men (22); amongst doctors this is even wider, women earning an average 34% less, which has expanded over the last decade. This year the BBC reported on how 95 of the 100 highest earning doctors in the UK were men, with full-time consultants earning on average £14,000 more than women in equivalent positions (23). Some of the contributing factors to these figures are well recognized, including higher rates of flexible training, part time working, and subsequently additional time required to attain higher positions. However, fewer women are applying for, and receiving, clinical excellence awards (CEAs). Data for this vary locally, but it has been proposed as one of the drivers to change the existing award scheme (24). Interestingly, this does not appear to be as pronounced for local CEAs in academia, with approximately equal percentages of men and women holding them. However far fewer women in academia held national CEAs - just under a quarter, compared with over 40% of men – though, importantly, they were equally likely to be successful at attaining one when they applied (6). Women appear not to be putting themselves forward for these awards: at the very top of the scale, six and a half times more men than women have a platinum award. What should we be doing about this as a profession? Awareness of the issues, measuring, benchmarking and challenging them, and looking for mechanisms for local redress are a start. The Athena SWAN charter is noteworthy in higher education for supporting institutes to improve measures of equality such as progression of students into academia, career journeys of staff, and the work environment. Within the RCPsych, respect is a defined key organizational value which includes challenging inequality. To ensure that a commitment to narrowing the gaps in gender equality run through all college policy the College has recently appointed its first Associate Dean for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. There are recognized criteria for good leadership, including targeting leadership biases (16), which can allow departmental or organizational evaluation to ensure an environment that encourages women’s leadership to flourish. An example is the Aurora Leadership Scheme that promotes exposure, mentoring, and meaningful management opportunities. Those in senior positions – men as well as women - have particular responsibilities and means to support the next generation of diverse talent to reach the top. We have seldom had so many medical Royal Colleges, including our own, led by women, and our current National Mental Health Director and previous National Clinical Director for Mental Health have high visibility. The President of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor Jane Dacre, is leading an independent review into the gender pay gap for doctors that will keep this conversation alive. Page 3 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review However, there are limits to what any organisation can achieve, unless more fundamental societal causes of inequality are not addressed. Men are a crucial part of this conversation; for too long many men saw inequity as a “women’s issue” – it is a societal issue, including welfare policy and cultural attitudes and practice in terms of child care and part-time working (25). Other intersectional issues can scarcely be done justice in a single editorial, but we are reminded that only 2% of professors in the UK are female and from black and minority ethnic backgrounds (26). Goldin (27) argued that the largest advance to career attainment gap in the labour market is to improve temporal flexibility. Changes in how jobs are structured, with more flexibility in work hours, and less reward for working long hours might help. Indeed, this is one of the key pillars of Nordic policies for gender equality, which alongside investment in gender equal workplaces and free childcare have contributed to creating some of the most gender equal labour markets. Equality is not just about having a level playing field, it is about unleashing talent. As well as being the ‘right thing to do’, the aforementioned Nordic model has been shown to have contributed considerably to economic growth, re-emphasizing the societal loss from inequity. Work by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), the primary community of leading and emerging women entrepreneurs and executives in Silicon Valley (28), has shown that greater senior female leadership improves perceived line management support, employee engagement, and organisational dedication, whilst reducing staff burnout. We finish by throwing a couple of challenges to the BJPsych and the academic publishing sector: we would welcome a review of the processes and commitments toward female representation on publication and in leadership positions. Secondly, a quick look at the stats show that most journals still have unequal representation of women at editorial board level. Looking at the New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, Annual Review of Psychology, JAMA psychiatry and the BMJ, between 22 and 50 percent of editorial boards are female. To adopt another of 2018’s hashtags, as #immodestwomen we say that’s better than it was a decade ago, but not good enough. We hope that the BJPsych, with about a third of women on the board, will lead the way in creating equality. Declaration of Interest The authors confirm they have no relevant interests to declare. References 1 The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Women, science, medicine and psychiatry [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 3]. Available from: https://soundcloud.com/rcpsych/women-science- medicine-and-psychiatry/s-JfwrG 2 Carter A, Croft A, Lukas D, Sandstrom G. Women's visibility in academic seminars: women ask fewer questions than men [blog on the Internet]. London: LSE; 2018 Jan 17 [cited 2018 Page 4 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review Jul 2]. Available from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/01/17/women- ask-fewer-questions-than-men-in-academic-seminars/ 3 European Commission. SHE Figures 2015 [Internet]. Brussels: European Commission; 2016. [cited 2018 Jul 3]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf 4 Equality in higher education: statistical report 2017 [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-higher- education-statistical-report-2017/ 5 Hewlett SA, Buck Luce C, Servon LJ, Sherbin L, Shiller P, Sosnovich E, Sumberg K. The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology [Internet]. New York: Harvard Business Review; 2008. Product no. 10094. [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: http://rachelappel.com/media/downloads /w_athena_factor.pdf 6 Medical Schools Council. Survey of Medical Clinical Academic Staffing Levels 2017 [Internet]. London: Medical Schools Council; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/2026/medical-clinical-academic-staffing-levels- 2017.pdf 7 Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. J Lang Evol. 2016;1(2):163-167. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009 8 Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass D, Pollock B, Smith E, Martinez M. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i847 9 Jagsi R, Guancial E, Worobey C, Henault L, Chang Y, Starr R, et al. The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective. NEJM. 2006;355(3):281-287. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa053910 10 Ournals HIGHRJ, Shen YA, Webster JM, Shoda Y, Fine I. Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high-profile journals. BioRxiv. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/275362 11 O’Hara B. Peer Review Week: Should we use double blind peer review? The evidence…. [blog on the Internet]. London: British Ecological Society; 2016 Sep 22 [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://methodsblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/peer-review-week- should-we-use-double-blind-peer-review-the-evidence/ 12 NHS. Analysis of the representation of women across the hospital and community health services workforce [Internet]. [place unknown]: NHS Digital; 2018. [cited 2018 Jul 4]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/find-data-and- publications/supplementary-information/2018-supplementary-information-files/analysis-of- Page 5 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review the-representation-of-women-across-the-hospital-and-community-health-services- workforce 13 Royal College of Psychiatrists. Census 2017: Workforce figures for consultant and specialty doctor psychiatrists [Internet]. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 4]. Available from https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/RCPsych_workforce_census_report_2017.pdf 14 General Medical Council. The state of medical education and practice in the UK [Internet]. [place unknown]: General Medical Council; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 4]. Available from: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/about/somep-2017-final- full.pdf?la=en&hash=3FC4B6C2B7EBD840017B908DBF0328CD840640A1 15 Sealy R. NHS Women on Boards 50:50 by 2020 [Internet]. [place unknown]: University of Exeter Business School; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 4]. Available from: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Publications/NHS%20Women%20on%2 0Boards%20report.pdf 16 Weissbourd R. Leaning Out: Teen Girls and Leadership Biases [Internet]. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education; 2015. [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/leanout-report.pdf 17 Boring A, Ottoboni K, Stark PB. Student evaluations of teaching are not only unreliable, they are significantly biased against female instructors [blog on the internet]. London: LSE; [date unknown] [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/02/04/studentevaluations-of-teaching- gender-bias/ 18 Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki V. A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7-8):509-514. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4 19 Trix F, Psenka C. Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty. DAS. 2003;14(2):191-220. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277 20 Grove J. Female professors ‘pay price for academic citizenship.’ Times Higher Education World University Ranks [newspaper on the Internet].; [cited 2018 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/female-professors-pay-price-academic- citizenship 21 Office for National Statistics. Women shoulder the responsibility of 'unpaid work' [Internet]. Office for National Statistics; 2016 Nov 10. [cited 2018 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworking hours/articles/womenshouldertheresponsibilityofunpaidwork/2016-11-10 Page 6 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych For Peer Review 22 Schlepper L, Appleby J. The gender pay gap in the English NHS [blog on the internet]. London: Nuffield Trust; 2018 May 30 [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-gender-pay-gap-in-the-english-nhs#staff- and-pay-groups 23 Hotten R. Top 10 worst excuses for not appointing women executives. BBC News [Internet]. 2018 May 31 [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44310225 24 NHS. Employer FAQS on the local clinical excellence awards [Internet]. [place unknown]: NHS Employers; 2018 Mar 22 [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/medical-staff/consultants- and-dental-consultants/local-clinical-excellence-awards-arrangements-from-1-april- 2018/local-clinical-excellence-award-employer-faqs 25 Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, Ziebland S. Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions. BMC. 2017;15(12):1-13. 26 Universities UK. Patterns and trends in UK higher education 2017 [Internet]. London: Universities UK; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 4]. Available from: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/facts-and-stats/data-and-analysis/Documents/patterns- and-trends-2017.pdf 27 Goldin C. A grand gender convergence: It’s last chapter. AER. 2014;104(4):1091-1119. 28 Clerkin C. What women want – And why you want women – In the workplace [Internet]. North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership; 2017. [cited 2018 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WhatWomenWant.FINAL_.pdf Page 7 of 7 Cambridge University Press BJPsych