2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      All Male Panels and Other Diversity Considerations for ISPOR

      letter
      1 , 2 ,
      PharmacoEconomics Open
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Diversity and inclusiveness are critically important, and the current gender imbalance at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) conferences is clearly not acceptable. This is my view—and it is also shared by ISPOR Board of Directors and executive team. ISPOR has a large and very diverse membership—over 20,000 individual and chapter members from around the world—and its activities, including its ‘flagship’ conferences, should reflect this diversity. The fact they do not means we miss the opportunity to fully benefit from all the health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) expertise available within our membership. As ISPOR incoming President for the 2019–2020 term, I welcome Bouvy and Mujoomdar’s [1] note as a further spur to action. In this short response, I will add to Bouvy and Mujoomdar’s analysis, to provide further insight into the issue and the causes of the observed gender imbalance. Actions which are already being taken by ISPOR, and further courses of action being considered, are outlined. Finally, gender imbalance is set in the context of wider diversity issues. What is Causing the Gender Imbalance at ISPOR Conferences? Conference panel sessions (e.g. workshops and issues panels) are initiated by members, who submit abstracts comprising content and proposed panellists. Plenary sessions, in contrast, are planned and assembled by conference organising committees, with support from ISPOR staff and leaders. As a result, ISPOR and its leaders have an opportunity to influence the diversity of these plenary panels. Conference programme co-chairs and ISPOR staff have been charged with the goal of ensuring that there are no all-male plenary panels at ISPOR conferences. This will already have been evident in the plenaries at the ISPOR 2019 conference in New Orleans and will be evident again at the ISPOR Europe 2019 conference to take place in Copenhagen in November 2019. Additionally, all possible efforts are being made to ensure that any plenary sessions not involving panels, e.g. key note speakers, also take diversity into account. This therefore leaves the issue of the panel sessions initiated and submitted by ISPOR membership. Following the ISPOR Europe 2018 conference, in the light of concerns a number of us had raised, ISPOR undertook an analysis of abstract submissions and acceptances for issue panels—the session type examined by Bouvy and Mujoomdar [1]. This has been updated to include the most recent conference in New Orleans, providing data on the four most recent major (North American or European) conferences, involving the review of 305 submitted sessions and 1170 individual panellists by name (membership data do not include gender). The analysis included both international and European conference issue panels, as the importance of gender diversity applies to all of ISPOR offerings. The percentage of female panellists by submission was examined, since it is a better overall indicator of gender balance than the number of all-male panels per se. The gender balance in both submitted and accepted abstracts, combined and by conference, is shown in Fig. 1. The results show that the percentage of panellists that are female is nearly identical for submitted versus accepted sessions; this is true whether or not reviewer scores, which are the primary determinant of acceptance, are controlled for. As shown in Fig. 1, the percentage of female panellists was 34.2% on submitted abstracts and 34.9% on accepted presentations for the four conferences combined. This allowed us to reject one possible concern: that the selection process may have been driving or reinforcing gender inequity. Fig. 1 Percentage of female panellists in submitted vs accepted issue panel abstracts from ISPOR four most recent international conferences While in one sense this is reassuring, it also means that the gender imbalance which we observe arises from a much more complex set of underlying gender issues. ISPOR is, of course, not alone in this issue: gender imbalance is widely observed in medical and STEM conferences. A recent “Diversity & Inclusion in Events Report” [2], which analysed more than 60,000 event speakers at events across 23 countries over a 5-year period from 2013 to 2018, found that only 31% of speakers were women. A study published on JAMA Network Open, “Trends in the Proportion of Female Speakers at Medical Conferences in the United States and Canada, 2007 to 2017” [3], examined 701 academic medical conferences and found that only 31.8% of speakers were female. While we lack accurate statistics, I, like Bouvy and Mujoomdar [1], consider it likely that the HEOR community is approximately gender balanced, and the same is the case with ISPOR membership. Why, then, do we see such marked gender imbalance in the panels submitted from that membership base? The factors affecting gender imbalance in abstract submission (my thinking about which is inevitably shaped and/or limited by my own personal experience) include those listed in Box 1. Striving to understand what drives gender imbalance in abstract submissions is important, because it helps ISPOR to identify what combination of strategies is most appropriate to address this. What is ISPOR Doing to Address the Gender Imbalance in Abstract Submissions? There are two principal ways that ISPOR can address this gender imbalance: (1) improve the representation of women in the abstracts submitted, mobilising both men and women to make efforts to this end, and (2) change the selection criteria applied to evaluate abstracts to favour diverse panels. With respect to (1), actions which ISPOR has already taken include the establishment, in 2017, by Past President Professor Shelby D. Reed, of Women in HEOR [4], which has been active in creating a wide set of networking and mentoring opportunities for women, and is working to educate both men and women about gender issues, including explicit encouragement to women to submit abstracts. ISPOR online abstract submission form now includes this statement: ISPOR is strongly committed to diversity. The Society’s Strategic Plan and core values embrace excellence through encouragement and acceptance of diverse ideas, cultures, and disciplines. Research submissions are encouraged from all stakeholders and are evaluated based on merit. ISPOR also aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all endeavours and encourages consideration of diversity in abstract submissions. Diversity dimensions include (but not limited to) gender, career stage, ethnicity, race, education, sexual orientation, region/geographic location, physical disability, and religion. Additional information can be found at the Society’s Diversity Policy. ISPOR is also currently considering a wide range of further strategies—including ways of raising awareness among men, such as ‘nudges’ for those who somehow ‘missed the memo’ and continue to submit all-male panels. We are also considering how to reduce the search costs in identifying content experts among ISPOR large membership, in order to encourage those developing abstracts to ‘cast the net more widely’. With respect to (2), the selection criteria are currently under review to identify how best to use these to reinforce the importance of gender balance and diversity more generally. Banning all male panels is an option, but the current approach focuses on raising awareness about why gender balance is important, changing the culture around this, and attempting to bring all members along with us. The selection criteria will be modified to add gender diversity as a factor, but not, for the time being, to create an outright veto for single-sex panels. However, we will monitor the effectiveness of current strategies. Wider Diversity Issues Affecting HEOR and ISPOR Finally, it should be noted that improving the gender balance in ISPOR conferences is one aspect of a wider set of issues relating to diversity. This has been recognised by previous ISPOR presidents and included in strategic planning. Diversity issues featured strongly in the statements I made in my President-Elect speech at ISPOR 2019 in New Orleans (which will be published in the ISPOR Value and Outcomes Spotlight in coming months). Working with CEO Nancy Berg, ISPOR Board of Directors aims to take this agenda forward with greater speed. Our message is clear: ISPOR is committed to diversity, including (but not restricted to) addressing gender imbalance. It is the right thing to do. I am aware that there are some who think ISPOR is focussing too much on diversity, and not enough on HEOR science, but the reality is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Evidence shows that more diverse organisations have higher performance [5]. ISPOR pursuit of excellence in HEOR will be served by bringing forward and developing HEOR talent from all members, regardless of gender, race, or other characteristics. To this end, ISPOR Board of Directors has worked with ISPOR executive team to develop a Diversity Policy [6] which was recently approved by the Board. This will be accompanied by a set of actions to achieve those goals. These actions include routine collection and publication of metrics on ISPOR achievement of diversity goals, to which we will be held to account. ISPOR is an extraordinary and unique organisation both in terms of the breadth of its global membership and in bringing together different stakeholders that include researchers and academics, assessors and regulators, payers and policy makers, the life sciences industry, healthcare providers, and patient engagement organisations. Our aim is to reflect ISPOR diverse membership in its conferences and other activities, and ambitiously, I would like ISPOR to become a beacon of good practice in this respect. I call all ISPOR members to commit to this!

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          All-Male Panels and Gender Diversity of Issue Panels and Plenary Sessions at ISPOR Europe

          Despite making up half of the world’s population, women are still underrepresented in many fields of science, business and politics. At conferences, the all-male panel (‘manel’) is a well-known and increasingly criticised phenomenon. Furthermore, there is growing awareness of the need to ensure diversity among speakers at international conferences. Especially in panel sessions at scientific conferences that aim to debate issues from a variety of perspectives, it is crucial that these perspectives extend beyond those of white men. In our own personal experience, the health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) field is not particularly male-dominated. In our own organisations and in scholarly work, we encounter many women who make important contributions to the field. Yet, in recent years we have observed that speaker diversity at many conferences, workshops and symposia in the HEOR field remains disappointing. In order to assess whether our own observations held any truth, we assessed the gender distribution of speakers at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe conferences issue panels and plenary sessions. We selected ISPOR conferences as ISPOR is “the leading professional society for health economics and outcomes research globally” [1] and the annual European meeting is its largest meeting, with almost 5000 attendees in 2017 [2] making it, to the best of our knowledge, the largest annual scientific conference in HEOR worldwide. We included ISPOR Europe conferences of the last 3 years (2018 Barcelona; 2017 Glasgow; 2016 Vienna) in our sample. We did not include more years in our dataset as the programmes of conferences that took place earlier than 2016 were no longer accessible through the ISPOR website. For each conference, we used the programme to identify the list of speakers for each issue panel (between 20 and 30 in total per conference) and for all plenary sessions (three per conference). We included issue panels as these are meant to debate views on controversial topics. The submission instructions for issue panels are that they are “designed to stimulate real debate on new or controversial topics in health economics and outcomes research” and that “each panelist is expected to provide a different perspective on the issue” [3]. In addition, in order to be able to submit an abstract for an issue panel, the moderator of the issue panel must have invited the experts to participate in the panel. The ability to participate in issue panels, therefore, requires a panellist to be recognised by their peers as an expert on the issue panel’s topic and to be invited to contribute to an abstract for submission to the conference. We assumed people listed in the conference programme with names commonly used by males to identify as male and people listed with names commonly used by females to identify as female. When we encountered a name where gender was not obvious (e.g. Kim, Robin) we used Google to assess the gender the person most likely identified as, for example through their LinkedIn profile page. Although some people will identify as neither male nor female, for the purposes of this study we were unable to be more specific. Both authors extracted all data independently. Inter-rater reliability was assessed and all divergences were solved through consensus. We used Microsoft Excel® to calculate the gender distributions for each year. We found that, in total, 70% of speakers listed on issue panels and plenary sessions at ISPOR Europe conferences during 2016–2018 were males. In total, 346 people participated in 85 issue panels and plenary sessions at ISPOR Europe conferences in 2016, 2017 and 2018 (Table 1). In 2016, 73% speakers were male, with 66% male speakers in 2017 and 70% male speakers in 2018. Table 1 Male and female speakers and distribution of speakers on issue panels and plenary sessions at International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe conferences in 2016, 2017 and 2018 Conference Males [n (%)] Females [n (%)] Distribution of speakers on panels and plenary sessions [n (%)] Manels > 50% males > 50% females All-female panels Barcelona, 2018 87 (70) 37 (30) 9 (30) 19 (63) 3 (10) 1 (3) Glasgow, 2017 82 (66) 42 (34) 8 (26) 18 (58) 4 (13) 1 (3) Vienna, 2016 72 (73) 26 (27) 8 (33) 17 (71) 2 (8) 0 (0) Total 241 (70) 105 (30) 25 (29) 54 (64) 9 (11) 2 (2) Almost 30% of all panels at ISPOR Europe conferences were manels (29.4% in 2016–2018) (Fig. 1, Table 1). Furthermore, issue panels and plenary sessions were male-dominated even if they were not a manel: 64% of all panels at the three conferences had a majority of male speakers (> 50%). Only 11% of the panels and plenary sessions had mostly female speakers (> 50%), and 26% of panels and plenary sessions had an equal amount of male and female speakers. Fig. 1 Distribution of speakers for all issue panels and plenary sessions at International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe conferences in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Each bar represents an issue panel. The plenary sessions are indicated using black borders (three per conference) Only 2% of all panels (two panels of 85 in total) were all-female. Although we did not have access to the gender distribution of ISPOR members, in our experience HEOR is not a particularly male-dominated field, illustrated by the fact that eight of the 12 current members of the ISPOR Board of Directors are women. We highly doubt that our results can be explained solely by a lack of availability of sufficient female HEOR experts to participate in issue panels and plenary sessions. The ‘gender role hypothesis’ assumes that the lower the number of women in a group, the less women participate in and influence its discussions and decision-making [4]. Reasons for this effect include that simply being a numerical minority in the group will lower the status and, subsequently, the authority and participation of women in the group’s discussions [4]. The literature also suggests that women tend to participate in discussions less than men in male-dominated groups due to gendered norms of interaction that vary with gender composition, and that women’s participation, and influence, increases as their proportion increases [4]. Currently, 64% of panels at ISPOR Europe are male-dominated. This means that, apart from the existence of a barrier for women to even participate in issue panels (as 29% of them do not include women at all), the current gender composition of ISPOR Europe’s issue panels and plenary sessions might continue to contribute to undermining women’s authority and participation in HEOR, simply due to them often being a minority on a panel. ISPOR could make a meaningful contribution to advancing women in HEOR—the aim of ISPOR’s own Women in HEOR Initiative [5]—by no longer accepting abstract submissions for issue panels where there is not at least one female panellist, preferably in a non-moderator role, and by banning all-male plenary sessions. Given ISPOR’s interest in advancing women in HEOR, banning manels would both improve the gender balance of speakers at ISPOR conferences and also send a clear signal that ISPOR is serious about its commitment to advance women’s leadership in the field. Speaking opportunities at plenary sessions and as a panellist for an issue panel can be important to advance the career of a HEOR professional, and, thus, are important for men and women to establish themselves as experts on key HEOR issues. We did not take moderator versus non-moderator roles on issue panels and during plenary sessions into account. However, there is evidence to suggest that women are more often assigned the role of moderator, rather than as a panellist, when being invited to participate in a panel [6]. We were also not able to study other types of diversity at ISPOR, such as representation of speakers from different countries or from ethnic minorities, as there is not a straightforward method to do so. Notwithstanding, we strongly believe steps to improve diversity should not be limited to improving gender balance. Making other diversity requirements for the representativeness of speakers would be easy to implement and should be considered in the process of abstract submission and review. Not everyone will share our view that the high proportion of manels at ISPOR Europe conferences—or any conference—is a problem. We believe that any person in the HEOR field, regardless of their gender or ethnicity, deserves equal access to career opportunities such as participating as experts in panel discussions and plenary sessions. There is evidence to suggest that women in different fields of science, including economics, face considerable gender bias that could explain why men frequently submit abstracts for issue panels that do not include women. Recent Dutch and French studies found that in university courses, female instructors received lower scores than male instructors on teaching evaluations despite producing similar grades, and this effect was mainly driven by male students scoring female instructors lower than male instructors [7, 8]. Women were found to receive lower scores on grant applications in Canada, an effect that disappeared when only the quality of the application was reviewed, and not the principal investigator [9]. When staff at a US university were asked to review job applications for a laboratory manager position where the applications were randomly assigned male or female names, male applicants were rated as significantly more competent and hireable than identical female applicants [10]. Therefore, there is evidence to suggest that women, including women in HEOR, are less likely to be recognised as experts by their peers, which could explain why so few women end up on issue panels at ISPOR Europe. The persistence of gender bias also means that policies that encourage but do not enforce female participation are unlikely to be effective in creating more balanced panels. Gender bias is largely unconscious; we suspect that the men who submit manel abstracts for ISPOR Europe might not just exclude women from their panels purely because they are women; they might hold beliefs that there are no female experts available, or that the female experts they do know do not have the same level of authority or eminence as male experts do. Furthermore, seniority could be seen as a proxy for expertise, and it is possible there are fewer senior female HEOR experts. We believe it is unlikely people will make different choices, as they are largely driven by unconscious bias, unless they are forced to make a different choice. Therefore, we believe a manel ban for ISPOR Europe (and other conferences) is needed to improve the gender balance of its panels and plenary sessions. There are several limitations to this study. First, we only included data for the last 3 years of ISPOR Europe conferences, as the programmes for earlier years were not available. We cannot exclude the possibility that gender distribution was much more favourable before 2016, but, if this were the case, the decrease in diversity among speakers in recent years would be slightly alarming and even more reason for considering implementing policy changes. In addition, all data were collected manually and it is possible that some names were misclassified or errors made. However, both authors extracted all data independently, initial inter-rater agreement was 94%, and all identified divergences were solved through consensus. We did not extend our analysis to other, similar conferences in HEOR. Different conferences use different formats for their online programmes, which limits the ability to collect the data in the same way we did for this study. For example, if the conference programme does not list first and last names, but only uses initials, it is much more challenging to assess gender distribution. Despite laudable efforts to support women’s leadership in the HEOR field, ISPOR’s biggest conference has severe underrepresentation of women on issue panels and plenary sessions. Implementing a manel ban, by making it a requirement that an abstract submission for an issue panel has at least one woman, would be a highly effective way to improve the gender balance of issue panels. ISPOR’s own Women in HEOR Initiative states that “diversity in the field will result in better research and better healthcare decisions” [4]. We could not agree more. Electronic supplementary material Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 38 kb)
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            nancy.devlin@unimelb.edu.au
            Journal
            Pharmacoecon Open
            Pharmacoecon Open
            PharmacoEconomics Open
            Springer International Publishing (Cham )
            2509-4262
            2509-4254
            22 July 2019
            22 July 2019
            September 2019
            : 3
            : 3
            : 423-426
            Affiliations
            [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2179 088X, GRID grid.1008.9, Centre for Health Policy, , University of Melbourne, ; Melbourne, Australia
            [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0629 613X, GRID grid.482825.1, Office of Health Economics, ; London, UK
            Article
            169
            10.1007/s41669-019-0169-5
            6710304
            31328247
            5d396aa5-b739-4b01-bf04-0479ba12fa77
            © The Author(s) 2019

            Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

            History
            Categories
            Letter to the Editor
            Custom metadata
            © The Author(s) 2019

            Comments

            Comment on this article