PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Kallmes, D.F.Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Radiology Publication Productivity: An Examination of Academic Faculty From Four Health Systems in the United States Open PDF 
    (2017)
    McDonald, J.S.
    ;
    McDonald, R.J.
    ;
    Davenport, M.S.
    ;
    Jaffe, T.A.
    ;
    Cook, T.S.
    Objectives To compare male and female radiology faculty publication productivity metrics at four major academic centers. Materials and Methods All Radiology Department faculty members at four academic medical centers from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015, were included. Publication metrics including total number of manuscripts published; h- and m-indices; number of publications where faculty member was listed as first, last, or sole author; whether a woman was listed as one of the first five coauthors; and year of first publication were retrieved from Scopus. Publication metrics were compared between genders using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ2 tests. Results A total of 711 faculty members (519 male, 192 [27%] female members) were identified. Male faculty had a significantly higher number of total publications (median 54 versus 24, P <.0001), publications per year (median 2.9 versus 1.6, P <.0001), and h- (median 17 versus 10, P <.0001) and m-indices (median 0.83 versus 0.60, P <.0001) than female faculty. Male faculty had a significantly higher percentage of single author (median 1% versus 0%, P =.0014) and last author (median 16% versus 11%, P <.0001) publications than female faculty. Female faculty had a significantly higher percentage of first author publications (21% versus 17%, P =.0025) and were significantly more likely to have another woman in their first five coauthor list (70% versus 45%, P <.0001) than male faculty. Conclusions Large differences exist between female and male faculty in total publications; h- and m-indices; publications per year; number of first, single, last author papers; and percentage of faculty that have a female coauthor in their top five coauthor lists. © 2017 American College of Radiology
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF 
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2023)
    Kyarunts, M.
    ;
    Michaelcheck, C.E.
    ;
    Kobeissi, H.
    ;
    Kallmes, D.F.
    ;
    Agid, R.
    Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.