PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, FaisalSubject: search.filters.subject.Sexism

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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 distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hafeez, Dawood M.
    ;
    Waqas, Ahmed
    ;
    Majeed, Salman
    ;
    Naveed, Sadiq
    ;
    Afzal, Khalid I.
    Gender disparity has been documented in advanced doctoral degrees, research, and academic positions, and therefore, it can logically be deduced that the gender disparity would be found in journals' editorial boards. In this study, we sought to determine the gender distribution in editorial boards of psychiatry journals worldwide. We also studied the academic achievements of editorial board members by comparing professional background, education level, and research productivity indices. We analyzed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals from Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports. Our data included 8423 editorial board members from which we randomly selected 10% editorial board members to represent the full sample for further analyses. Overall, women represented 30.4% of editorial board and approximately 30% in each category: (1) Editor-in-chief/deputies, (2) Associate/section editors, (3) Editorial board*, and (4) Advisory board. The majority (65%) of men were M.D. psychiatrists, and women (58%) were Ph.D. psychologists. Women in editorial leadership positions (Category 1 & 2) were correlated with fewer women in editorial or advisory boards. Women had half the mean number of publications than men while serving journals with approximately the same mean impact factor. Our study results show that, besides gender disparity, gender bias does not exist in the psychiatry journal editorial boards. Given the implication of the editorial board position on science, academic advancement, and networking, this disparity remains detrimental to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic psychiatry.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Academic Trauma Surgery: The Current State of Affairs Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Ali Farhan, Syed
    ;
    Hasnain, Nimra
    ;
    Moorpani, Manpreet
    ;
    Sajid, Emad-Ud-Din
    ;
    Shahid, Izza
    INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing number of female surgeons in general surgery programs, women are still inadequately represented in leadership positions. This study aims to investigate the magnitude of gender bias in university-based trauma surgery fellowship programs and leadership positions in the United States of America. MATERIAL AND METHODS: FRIEDA was used to identify trauma surgery programs. A thorough website review of each program obtained further information on faculty members, including their name, age, gender, and faculty rank. Trauma surgeons with an MD or DO qualification and a faculty rank of Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor were selected for inclusion in this study. SCOPUS was used to assess the H-index and the number of publications and citations of surgeons. RESULTS: The total number of programs included was 136, consisting of 715 faculty members. Less than a quarter (n = 166; 23.2%) comprised females and less than one-fifth (n = 30; 19%) of female surgeons were Professors. The difference in the research productivity of male and female trauma surgeons was statistically significant (P < .05), with the average H-index being 10 vs 7.5, respectively, amongst the top 50 surgeons of both genders. Based on a multiple regression analysis, academic rank was significantly associated (P < .05), and gender was not significantly associated (P > .05) with H-index. CONCLUSION: Gender disparity exists in the field of trauma surgery, as noted in senior faculty ranks and leadership positions. Female-inclusive state policies, appropriate mentorship, and supportive institutions can help to bridge this gap.