There have been recent discussions within the O&P professional community regarding the notion of a “glass ceiling” for women. While this topic deserves consideration, it is equally important to present alternate perspectives—particularly from those who may feel hesitant to share their views out of concern for professional repercussions or perceived bias.
From my experience in the field, I do not believe that a systemic glass ceiling currently exists within O&P. Rather, I see multiple factors: individual career choices, professional expectations, and the realities of patient care.
Education
In examining the issue of gender equity at the entry level, it is difficult to find evidence of institutional barriers for women. Admissions to O&P programs are based on academic and professional merit, and recent class photographs from accredited programs often show women-majority cohorts. There is no indication that women are being discouraged or prevented from entering O&P programs.
Mentorship
Some have suggested that a lack of mentorship contributes to unequal advancement. In my experience, mentorship is less a matter of availability and more a matter of initiative.
Historically, mentorship in O&P was often earned through effort—seeking out a practitioner, demonstrating interest, and cultivating a relationship. Today, many new professionals expect to be assigned a mentor automatically through institutional programs, of which there are many available and even women-specific mentorships.
Career Advancement and Personal Choice
Success in O&P depends on professional competence, not gender. Skills such as patient care, communication, fabrication, and clinical judgment are developed through education, experience, and dedication.
Where some perceive a glass ceiling, I often see differences in personal priorities and lifestyle choices that affect career trajectory. Leadership and ownership roles frequently demand long hours, on-call responsibilities, and time away from personal commitments. These demands are not unique to O&P, and they affect all professionals, regardless of gender. If a practitioner—man or woman—seeks reduced hours, more flexibility, or limited travel, that is a valid personal choice. However, it may limit eligibility for certain roles that require higher availability or responsibility. Employers, likewise, must balance the operational needs of their practice and patient care.
Employment is a mutual relationship. When both employer and employee communicate expectations clearly, whether for full-time, part-time, or flexible work, alignment becomes possible without attributing outcomes to gender bias.
Changing the Discussion
I believe that continually telling women they will face insurmountable barriers can be counterproductive, particularly for those just entering the field. Our profession has numerous examples of successful women in leadership—from clinic owners and educators to regional managers and association executives.
Instead of focusing solely on gender, we might benefit from broader conversations about the structural challenges facing all practitioners, including reimbursement pressures, administrative burdens, and evolving patient care demands.
Conclusion
O&P is, at its core, a patient-centered field. The quality of care we deliver depends on dedication, education, and professionalism. By focusing on collaboration, clear communication, and mutual understanding, we can move beyond the rhetoric of barriers and instead enable people to succeed and create a great environment for practitioners.
Brittany Stresing, CPO, FAAOP, is president and owner of Limbionics, North Carolina. She is a past-president of the North Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists and a previous board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and Prosthetics.
