PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, FaisalStart date: 2025

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • 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.