PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, F.Subject: search.filters.subject.Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    National Institutes of Health: Gender Differences in Radiology Funding Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Jutras, M.
    ;
    Malekafzali, L.
    ;
    Jung, S.
    ;
    Das, P.
    ;
    Qamar, S.R.
    Rationale and Objective: Radiology has traditionally remained one of the most male-dominated specialties, although a higher proportion of women are now beginning to occupy roles as academic radiologists than their male counterparts. The present study investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding within Diagnostic Radiology stratified by gender, and correlated with measures of academic output, including h-index. Materials and Methods: Data on funding was obtained from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results for fiscal years 2016–2019, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. Results: Of the 2929 grants included in this analysis, 1789 (61.07%) were awarded to male PIs and 1140 (38.9%) to female PIs. Among PIs holding a PhD degree, male PIs had a higher mean grant amount ($619,807.00) compared to female PIs ($158,486.00). Conclusion: Although female representation within academic radiology has been increasing, the mean NIH grants awarded to women is less than that awarded to men. Reasons for this are numerous and may include differential prioritization of career objectives among men and women, although such rationalization is inevitably speculative in nature. Significant gender differences in NIH funding were seen at the PhD level, and the strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the h-index of female PIs. These results underscore the fact that women are ostensibly being held to a higher academic standard than men in terms of funding decisions. © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists
  • Item type:Publication,
    Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Neuroradiology. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ahmadi, M.
    ;
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Sanelli, P. C.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Chahal, T.
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There has been extensive interest in promoting gender equality within radiology, a predominately male field. In this study, our aim was to quantify gender representation in neuroradiology faculty rankings and determine any related factors that may contribute to any such disparity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the academic and administrative faculty members of neuroradiology divisions for all on-line listed programs in the US and Canada. After excluding programs that did not fulfill our selection criteria, we generated a short list of 85 US and 8 Canadian programs. We found 465 faculty members who met the inclusion criteria for our study. We used Elsevier's SCOPUS for gathering the data pertaining to the publications, H-index, citations, and tenure of the productivity of each faculty member. RESULTS: Gender disparity was insignificant when analyzing academic ranks. There are more men working in neuroimaging relative to women (χ(2) = 0.46; P = .79). However, gender disparity was highly significant for leadership positions in neuroradiology (χ(2) = 6.76; P = .009). The median H-index was higher among male faculty members (17.5) versus female faculty members (9). Female faculty members have odds of 0.84 compared with male faculty members of having a higher H-index, adjusting for publications, citations, academic ranks, leadership ranks, and interaction between gender and publications and gender and citations (9). CONCLUSIONS: Neuroradiology faculty members follow the same male predominance seen in many other specialties of medicine. In this study, issues such as mentoring, role models, opportunities to engage in leadership/research activities, funding opportunities, and mindfulness regarding research productivity are explored.