Gender Bias and Ophthalmology Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones Evaluations

Women remain underrepresented in ophthalmology and gender-based disparities exist in salary, grant receipt, publication rates, and surgical volume throughout training and in practice. Although studies in emergency medicine and general surgery showed mixed findings regarding gender differences in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones ratings, limited data exist examining such differences within ophthalmology.

To examine gender differences in ophthalmology ACGME Milestones.

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of postgraduate year 4 (PGY-4) residents from 120 ophthalmology programs graduating in 2019.

PGY-4 midyear and year-end medical knowledge (MK) and patient care (PC) ratings and Written Qualifying Examination (WQE) scaled scores for residents graduating in 2019 were included. Differential prediction techniques using Generalized Estimating Equations models were performed to identify differences by gender.

Of 452 residents (median [IQR] age, 30.0 [29.0-32.0] years), 275 (61%) identified as men and 177 (39%) as women. There were no differences in PC domain average between women and men for both midyear (-0.07; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0; P =.06) and year-end (-0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.03; P =.51) assessment periods. For the MK domain average in the midyear assessment period, women (mean [SD], 3.76 [0.50]) were rated lower than men (mean [SD], 3.88 [0.47]; P = .006) with a difference in mean of -0.12 (95% CI, -0.18 to -0.03). For the year-end assessment, however, the average MK ratings were not different for women (mean [SD], 4.10 [0.47]) compared with men (mean [SD], 4.18 [0.47]; P = .20) with a difference in mean of -0.08 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.03).

Results suggest that ACGME ophthalmology Milestones in 2 general competencies did not demonstrate major gender bias on a national level at the time of graduation. There were, however, differences in MK ratings at the midyear mark, and as low ratings on evaluations and examinations may adversely affect career opportunities for trainees, it is important to continue further work examining other competencies or performance measures for potential biases.