PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, FaisalStart date: 2020

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 18
  • Item type:Publication,
    A longitudinal analysis of gendered career trajectories and academic efficiency in North American MD/PhD faculty Open PDF 
    (Informa UK Limited, 2026-05-28)
    Quon, Stephanie
    ;
    Joseph, Marissa
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Gender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing women's representation in higher education. Prior research highlights the underrepresentation of women in senior ranks and leadership roles, yet few studies have assessed these disparities using time-adjusted productivity metrics. This study aims to evaluate gender-based differences in academic rank, scholarly productivity, and leadership representation among MD/PhD faculty in North America, accounting for career length and institutional variability. A secondary analysis was conducted on a dataset of 6,149 MD/PhD faculty from 122 accredited North American medical schools. Time-adjusted measures of productivity, H-index per year and citations per year, were calculated. Gender differences in rank, productivity, and leadership were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests and descriptive statistics. Institutional-level representation of women in leadership roles was also analyzed. Women held significantly lower academic ranks than males and were underrepresented in departmental leadership roles. Despite achieving assistant and full professorships earlier, women were overall less likely to reach these positions. Males exhibited higher time-adjusted H-index and citation rates (p < .0001), with a compounded 3.5-year publication gap. Institutional analysis revealed stark variability: 38 institutions had no women in MD/PhD leadership roles, while fewer than 20 percent achieved gender parity. Gender disparities in academic medicine cannot be explained by productivity alone. Structural barriers, opaque promotion criteria, and institutional cultures continue to impede women's advancement and leadership. Addressing these inequities requires transparent policies, targeted mentorship, equity audits, and inclusive leadership pathways to support a more equitable academic workforce.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF 
    (California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
    Manes, Akash
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Knight, Starr
    ;
    Raja, Ali S.
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty Open PDF 
    (American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), 2026-01)
    Qazi, Shurjeel Uddin
    ;
    Cawse-Lucas, Jeanne
    ;
    Hussain, Mehwish
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the current trends of gender disparity in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns for research within Family Medicine. METHODS: Funding data was collected from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) system for fiscal years 2017-2020, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was retrieved from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. RESULTS: We analyzed 730 grants in our analysis. Amongst them, 398 (54.5%) were awarded to women PIs and 332 (45.5%) to men PIs. The mean NIH grant amount awarded to men PIs (518,862±490,793.32) was significantly higher than the mean grant amount awarded to women PIs (450,195±428,405.62) (p = 0.04). The strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the number of publications of men PIs. When the gender of PI and co-PI were analyzed together, there was no significant difference in the number of grants or mean grant amount. Stratification by academic degree revealed no significant difference between both genders for the mean NIH grant amount. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing representation of women within the discipline of family medicine, men continue to receive higher average NIH grant amounts compared to women. The differences are multifactorial and may include differences in academic productivity or grant committees' heuristics. Overall, the results were promising with little evidence of significant gender disequilibrium within NIH-funding for researchers in FM.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity among top North American medical schools and their affiliated radiology departments Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-01)
    Ahmadi, Shukria
    ;
    Joarder, Ishraq
    ;
    Rotter, Lara K
    ;
    Hussain, Mehwish
    ;
    Yong-Hing, Charlotte J
    Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the degree of gender disparity in leadership positions at the top 25 medical schools in North America compared to their affiliated radiology departments. Methods The academic rank and leadership appointment of medical school and radiology faculty were obtained from publicly available official websites between June-November 2022. Gender was determined using self-identified pronouns on website biographies. Alternatively, gender API software was used. Finally, SCOPUS Elsevier was used to extract research output metrics including publication counts, citations, and h-indices. Statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 software. Results 2216 individuals across 25 medical schools were included in this study. 1301 (58.7 %) were part of the medical school and 915 (41.3 %) were part of the affiliated radiology departments. Additionally, 1575 (71.1 %) were identified as men and 641 (28.9 %) as women. Rank biserial correlations showed a significant association between higher academic rank and male gender (rpb = 0.143, p < 0.001) regardless of affiliation (medical school leadership versus radiology faculty); this disparity was largest at the highest academic ranks. Male gender was associated with higher research productivity relative to female gender regardless of affiliation (p < 0.001). There were minimal statistical differences in leadership positions between genders, however the proportion of men holding the position of dean was two times higher than women. Conclusion The underrepresentation of women in academic medicine is prevalent in the top-ranking medical institutions in North America and disproportionately involves senior academic ranks and leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Assessing and improving women representation in radiology leadership positions Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-01)
    Sharma, Sonali
    ;
    Malik, Aleena
    ;
    Matschek, Jessica
    ;
    Zaki-Metias, Kaitlin M.
    ;
    Gandhi, Rushali
    Gender representation remains a critical issue in professions, especially within medical specialties like radiology, where the representation of women in leadership roles significantly lags. Despite a promising increase in women physicians in Canada, reaching 42.7% by 2019, radiology showcases a stark gender disparity, particularly in leadership positions. This article examines the barriers hindering women's advancement in radiology and proposes actionable solutions to cultivate a more equitable environment. It highlights the underrepresentation of women in radiology leadership across the United States and Canada, with women holding significantly fewer senior academic positions and leadership roles. Key barriers include a lack of women role models, gender-based obstacles in research opportunities, and by design discriminatory practices. Solutions proposed include the establishment of mentorship programs, and inclusive policies at multiple organizational levels such as at the level of trainees, faculty and leadership positions including chair of the department. Additionally, policies and initiatives centred on education and training in unconscious bias, the creation of professional groups for women in radiology, and interventions to address unsafe work environments.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sticky Floor, Broken Ladder, and Glass Ceiling: Gender and Racial Trends Among Neurosurgery Residents
    (2021)
    Maqsood, Hamza
    ;
    Younus, Shifa
    ;
    Naveed, Sadiq
    ;
    Chaudhary, Amna Mohyud Din
    ;
    Khan, Muhammad T.
    Introduction Diversity and equity in academic medicine are critically important in improving healthcare standards and patient-related outcomes. Gender and racial disparities are some major challenges faced by the health system. This article reviews the gender and racial trends among residents of neurosurgery in the United States (US). Methods We retrospectively analyzed the data extracted from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)'s annual Data Resource Books from 2007 to 2019. ACGME cataloged gender as men and women and race/ethnicity was categorized as White/non-Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Island, Hispanic, Black/non-Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan, others, and unknown. Counts, proportions, relative, and absolute percentage changes were calculated to highlight trends in resident appointments over time and across the specialty of neurosurgery. Results The number of female residents increased steadily from 10.6% in 2007 to 19.3% in 2019; with an absolute increase of 8.74%, a relative increase of 63.9%, and a simultaneous decrease in male residents. When averaged across the nine-year study period, 51% of the study sample was White (non-Hispanic), followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders at 15.2%. The representation of Hispanics was 4.3%, Black/African Americans were 4.5%, Native Americans/Alaskans were 0.2%, and others were 8% of the total study population. Conclusion Our study concludes that gender and racial disparity persist within the neurosurgery residency training programs in the US. Concrete efforts at all academic levels are needed to provide greater support for the females and for the careers of underrepresented minority (URM) trainees to ensure their increased representation in neurosurgery.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Lail, Achint
    ;
    Ding, Jeffrey
    ;
    Leyva, Brayden K.
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Nakae, Sunny
    OBJECTIVE: Achieving gender equity in academic medicine is not only a matter of social justice but also necessary in promoting an innovative and productive academic community. The purpose of this study was to assess gender distribution in dual MD/PhD academic programme faculty members across North America. METHODS: Academic metrics were analysed to quantify the relative career success of academic faculty members in MD/PhD programmes. Measured parameters included academic and leadership ranks along with nominal research factors such as peer-reviewed research publications, H-index, citation number and years of active research. RESULTS: Χ² analysis revealed a statistically significant (p<0.0001, χ²=114.5) difference in the gender distribution of faculty and leadership across North American MD/PhD programmes. Men held 74.2% of full professor positions, 64% of associate professor positions, 59.4% of assistant professor positions and 62.8% of lecturer positions. Moreover, men occupied a larger share of faculty leadership roles with a statistically significant disparity across all ranks (p<0.001, χ²=20.4). A higher proportion of men held positions as department chairs (79.6%), vice chairs (69.1%) and programme leads (69.4%). CONCLUSION: Gender disparity was prevalent in the MD/PhD programmes throughout North America with women achieving a lower degree of professional stature than men. Ultimately, steps must be taken to support women faculty to afford them better opportunities for academic and professional advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Emergency Medicine Journal Editorial Boards: Analysis of Gender, H-Index, Publications, Academic Rank, and Leadership Roles Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Hutchinson, Daria
    ;
    Das, Priya
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Hill, Jesse
    ;
    Fares, Saleh
    Introduction: Our goal in this study was to determine female representation on editorial boards of high-ranking emergency medicine (EM) journals. In addition, we examined factors associated with gender disparity, including board members’ academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined EM editorial boards with an impact factor of 1 or greater according to the Clarivate Journal Citations Report for a total of 16 journals. All board members with a doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine degree, or international equivalent were included, resulting in 781 included board members. We analyzed board members’ gender, academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Results: Gender disparity was clearly notable, with men holding 87.3% (682/781) of physician editorial board positions and women holding 12.7% (99/781) of positions. Only 6.6% (1/15) of included editorial board chiefs were women. Male editorial board members possessed higher h-indices, total citations, and more publishing years than their female counterparts. Male board members held a greater number of departmental leadership positions, as well as higher academic ranks.Conclusion: Significant gender disparity exists on EM editorial boards. Substantial inequalities between men and women board members exist in both the academic and departmental realms. Addressing these inequalities will likely be an integral part of achieving gender parity on editorial boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender-Based Disparity in Academic Ranking and Research Productivity Among Canadian Anesthesiology Faculty
    (2020)
    Esslinger, Eric N.
    ;
    Van der Westhuizen, Michael
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Masud, Sarmad
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Purpose Despite increasing numbers of women entering anesthesiology training, women remain underrepresented in senior academic positions and leadership roles. This study aims to determine the extent of gender disparity in Canadian departments of anesthesiology. In addition, we explore the correlation between publication productivity and academic rank in this cohort. Methods The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) was queried to identify 17 training programs for anesthesiology. Department websites were searched to determine the names of faculty members, as well as gender, leadership roles, and academic ranks. The SCOPUS© database was used to generate the number of publications, number of citations, publication range, and h-index of each faculty member. Results In our study cohort of 1404 academic anesthesiologists, 30.1% were women. Women held a minority of 130 leadership positions (27%, n = 35). With increasing academic rank female representation decreased (p = 0.009), such that 21% of full professors were women. Overall, male anesthesiologists had a higher h-index, number of publications, and number of citations (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, and p = <0.001, respectively) than women. Conclusion Despite growing numbers of women entering the academic workforce, women are underrepresented in senior academic ranks and leadership positions. In addition, men and women have significant differences in measures of publication productivity. This study underscores the importance of directed efforts to promote equity in career outcomes.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Faculty Diversity Trends by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2007 to 2018 in the United States Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Zhang, Yanru
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    ;
    Tiwana, Sabeen
    ;
    Verduzco-Gutierrez, Monica
    ;
    Siddiqi, Javed
    INTRODUCTION: Sex and race/ethnicity disparities persist in academic Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). This study contributes to the current body of knowledge by demonstrating changes in academic PM&R by sex and race/ethnicity in multiple categories over a 12-year period. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate workforce disparities in academic PM&R by measuring sex and race/ethnicity diversity in academic degree, rank, and tenure status. DESIGN: Surveillance study. SETTING AND METHODS: Self-reported data for PM&R from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) annual Faculty Roster report from 2007 to 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 12-year average percentage composition in academic degree, rank, and tenure status was calculated to compare the overall distribution. Counts and proportion changes were plotted to depict the temporal trends. Absolute changes in racial percentage composition were graphed to highlight the progress. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, the increase by sex was roughly equal (male = 216; female = 236), whereas most of the increase was in White faculty (207). The representation of female and Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) faculty decreased as academic level advanced. Instructors is the only category with a higher proportion of female faculty, from 2007 (53%) to 2018 (59.3%), whereas male faculty occupied over 75% of the full professor positions at any time. Among the non-White faculty, Asian faculty had the greatest increase in proportion of full professors (3.7% to 10%) and Hispanic/Latino faculty in associate professors (2% to 7.1%), whereas full professors who were Black/African American decreased from 4 persons (2.5%) to 2 persons (0.8%). CONCLUSION: An increase in total number of female and URiM faculty was observed in academic PM&R over 2007 to 2018, but sex and ethnicity/race disparities persisted, especially in higher ranks and leadership positions. For non-White faculty, greater disparities existed, pointing toward the need to target challenges faced by URiM race/ethnicity status.