The status of academic interventional radiologists in Germany with focus on women: How can we do better?

Abstract Purpose The aim was to characterize the framework conditions in academic interventional radiology (IR) in Germany with focus on differences between genders. Materials and Methods After IRB approval, all members of The German Society for Interventional Radiology and Minimally Invasive Therapy (n = 1,632) were invited to an online survey on work conditions in clinical and academic practice. The academic practice subset contained questions about research challenges: networking, funding, working hours and time spent with research. Statistical comparisons were undertaken with the Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test or Pearson's Chi-squared test. Results 267 questionnaires were available resulting in a general response rate of 16.4%. Two-hundred of them were fully completed. 40% of these (78/200) were involved in academic IR (71% men vs. 29% women, p < .01) and were therefore eligible for further analysis. Of these, 6% worked part-time (2% vs. 17%, p < .05). 90% of them spent less than 25% of their research during their paid working hours, and 41% performed more than 75% of their research during leisure time. 28% received exemption for research. 88% were (rather) satisfied with their career. One in two participants successfully applied for funding, with higher success rates among male applicants (90% vs. 75%) and respondents with protected research time (93% vs. 80%). Compared to men, women rated their entrance in academic IR as harder (p < .05), their academic IR-career as more important (p < .05), felt less noticed at congresses (93% vs. 53%, p < .01), less confident (98% vs. 71%, p < .01), and not well connected (77% vs. 36%, p < .01). Conclusion Women and men did research under the same framework conditions; however, women were underrepresented. Future programs should generally focus on protected research and gather female mentors to advance academic IR in Germany.