New research has found that no Australian specialty training programs explicitly factor gender into their structured CV scoring systems, despite ongoing under-representation of women in several fields.

The findings, published in Internal Medicine Journal [link here], highlight a persistent gender imbalance across certain specialties and reinforce the need for strategies to address it, according to the group of Australian and US researchers.

Previous analysis of the Australian and New Zealand physician workforce pointed to gender disparities in most specialties, though cardiology was singled out as the only one with <20% female consultants [link here].

While the reasons for gender discrepancies are likely multifactorial, previous Australian studies have shown female applicants have significantly lower CV scores than their male counterparts, the authors said.

This cross-sectional study collected all publicly available Australian specialty selection criteria in 2024, looking at whether structured CV scoring information explicitly mentioned gender.

Of the 14 programs where scoring information was available, none of them allocated any points based on the gender of the applicant. None of the programs considered the gender of the applicant explicitly in the selection process, and there were no mechanisms like quotas mentioned.

“It is felt likely that these results represent all the structured CVs in use in specialty selection in Australia,” the authors said.

The absence of gender in the criteria was at odds with processes in some other Australian agencies, where gender has been used in evaluations when targeting certain applicants.

“For example, in 2020–2021, changes to NHMRC processes, targeting female applicants, included the evaluation of research achievements ‘Relative to Opportunity’,” the authors highlighted.

“Following a low proportion of successful female applicants in 2021, the NHMRC instated a gender quota for Investigator Grants at the mid-career and senior research levels.”

Are structured CVs still subject to gender bias?

The lack of explicit references to gender does not mean biases are completely absent from selection processes, the authors noted.

It’s been shown that women are less likely to be credited with authorship when in scientific teams with males [link here], yet authorship is one scoring metric in many structured CVs.

“Modification of scoring for structured CVs could present one avenue to improve female representation in selected specialties,” the investigators said.

But they acknowledge care must be taken if changing structured CV processes, given modifications could lead to unintended consequences including “potential for workplace discrimination on the basis of perceived unfair selection processes”.

Supporting female trainees in other ways, like supporting them in CV development, could be another way to support them through the application process, they said.

Whatever the path forward, the enduring lack of female representation in certain specialties was an issue than needed to be addressed, the authors argued.

“While adding CV points based upon gender is not necessarily the answer, further research into structured CV processes presents one avenue for investigation.”