Read on Twitter
There cannot be too many threads about the disastrous & #39;professionalism& #39; paper @JVascSurg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074152141932587X?dgcid=coauthor">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a...
Problem #1. The premise of the paper is that patients are trawling through physician FB profiles to select their doctors. The authors cite two online resources that don& #39;t actually seem to specifically support this. So we& #39;re already on shaky ground.
Problem #2. A bunch of (mostly) men sat around in their research group and decided that, amongst all the problems plaguing vascular surgery patients, this would be a good use of time and energy.
#2. Specifically, they decided to create social media accounts using which they rated (let& #39;s face it) photos of women colleagues in bikinis. In over a decade of doing all kinds of research, I have never, even fleetingly or casually, encountered such an idea.
#2. The problem here is, in part, the many types of diversity lacking in this research group. And this paper is evidence that we need diverse teams for everything we do in life.
#3. They formulated a proposal and got it approved by an IRB. How? This project violates many of the ethical principles set out in the Belmont report. #xethical">https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html #xethical">https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regu...
#3. (a) Residents are a vulnerable population in many ways. This left them exposed especially given how small the vascular community is. (b)This project has the potential to harm vulnerable residents, applicants, anyone who doesn& #39;t fit a certain demographic.
#3. (c) Fairness/justice. So much about this project reeks of paternalism, misogyny, ableism, and injustice of probably every other kind. Just because the accounts were public doesn& #39;t mean an application deserves IRB approval.
#4. Methods. (a) Huge selection bias. (b) Three dudes were put in charge of this project, which itself means women were about to be trampled all over. (c) Definition of unprofessional behaviour.
#4. (c continued) Unprofessional attire? Profanity? Controversial political statements and & #39;social topics& #39;? How deliciously vague!
#5. Results. With such vague guidelines, it is impossible that & #39;There were no discrepancies among the reviewers that required a consensus vote among the authors.& #39; Please.
#5. Table 1 is a joke. We need so much more information about these residents. Because we can just feel there& #39;s racism/xenophobia at play that they& #39;re not talking about. And apparently it& #39;s very important to tell us who& #39;s an MD vs. DO.
#5. We found out no HIPAA violations were actually found. But that& #39;s not as important as that photo of you at your department& #39;s holiday party with a glass of wine. Or being a vascular surgeon who& #39;s advocating for assault weapon bans.
#5. The most common citations were for: photos including EtOH, controversial comments like & #39;specific stances on abortion and gun control.& #39; Oh and inappropriate attire is 100% sexism: & #39;provocative Halloween costumes, and provocative posing in bikinis/swimwear& #39;
#5. We note that only 9 puritan gasp-inducing provocative attire photos were even found amongst 235 accounts. But man, that gets more air time in this glorified op-ed than the fact that nobody violated HIPAA (you know, the things that actually matter).
#5. Table 3 reminds us exactly how rubbish this study is. The authors proffer that there were no sex-based overall differences in & #39;unprofessional& #39; behaviour but neglect to give us a breakdown. The numbers are small enough that the p values are meaningless.
#5. I suspect I know the types of issues women got flagged about vs. men. After all, women were more likely to commit FB infractions. (Hint: it& #39;s about the provocative photos!) Also we continue to note that the & #39;non MDs& #39; are holding down the p value fort.
#7. The authors submit this paper to @JVascSurg and miraculously this gets accepted. And with an obsequious invited commentary to boot! How did this pass peer review? Who reviewed it? We note the editorial board is all male.
Basically this paper represents failure of contemporary research from conception through publication. And let& #39;s be honest: it& #39;s immensely revealing of the culture that prevails in the vascular division @BMCSurgery. And their values.
TL;DR: Retract paper. Paternalism and sexism alive and well. @BMCSurgery vascular is a huge red flag.
