• Kamolphob Phasuk, Michelle E Piasecki, Mathew T Kattadiyil, Sreenivas Koka, and Murat Mutluay.
• Director, Predoctoral Implant Prosthodontics and Clinical Assistant Professor, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Ind.
• J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Nov 1; 124 (5): 554-558.

Statement Of ProblemLeadership platforms in the professions include invitations to speak at the meetings of major organizations. However, the percentage of women speakers at prosthodontic meetings is lower than that of women prosthodontists overall. Recommendations or reporting requirements to address this deficiency are lacking.PurposeThe purpose of this observational study was to determine the probability of the number of women speakers at any scientific meetings of 6 different prosthodontic organizations over the past decade occurring by chance alone and to make recommendations for scientific program committees and organizations regarding the number of women speakers at future meetings.Material And MethodsThe number of men and women speakers at the 2009-2018 annual meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics (AP), American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics (AAFP), American College of Prosthodontics (ACP), American Prosthodontic Society (APS), Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics (GNYAP), and Pacific Coast Society for Prosthodontics (PCSP) was recorded. The chi-square test was used to determine differences in the percentage of women speakers over time and between organizations. The BINOM.DIST function was used to calculate the probability of selecting the exact number of women speakers at each meeting (α=.05).ResultsThe mean percentage of women speakers across all organizations and all years was 10.80%. The percentage ranged from 0.00% (AAFP 2013; ACP 2013; APS 2012, 2015; GNYAP 2009, 2014; and PCSP 2009, 2010, 2011) to 42.86% (AP 2013). No change in women speaker presence was observed over the time frame investigated. The AP had significantly more women speakers than the other organizations. Of the 60 meetings included, 25 meetings had a statistically significantly low number of women speakers, and 1 meeting had a statistically significantly high number of women speakers.ConclusionsThe number of women speakers at the scientific meetings of the organizations analyzed was significantly low and has not changed significantly over the years from 2009 to 2018. There were significantly more women speakers at the scientific meetings of the Academy of Prosthodontics than in the 5 other major prosthodontic organizations over the years 2009 to 2018. A recommendation is made that prosthodontic organizations include more women speakers on scientific programs. Specifically, a minimum of 25% of speakers should be women (rolling 3-year average) or 25% of podium time should be for women speakers (rolling 3-year average).Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

8 keywords...

hide…