PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Silver, Julie K.Subject: search.filters.subject.Female

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Pediatrics: Progress, Barriers, and Opportunities for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Spector, Nancy D.
    ;
    Asante, Philomena A.
    ;
    Marcelin, Jasmine R.
    ;
    Poorman, Julie A.
    ;
    Larson, Allison R.
    Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. The sheer number of women who comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States suggests this specialty has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine and pediatrics. However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or even regressing. The fair treatment of women pediatricians will require enhanced and simultaneous commitment from leaders in 4 key gatekeeper groups: academic medical centers, hospitals, health care organizations, and practices; medical societies; journals; and funding agencies. In this report, we describe the 6-step equity, diversity, and inclusion cycle, which provides a strategic methodology to (1) examine equity, diversity, and inclusion data; (2) share results with stakeholders; (3) investigate causality; (4) implement strategic interventions; (5) track outcomes and adjust strategies; and (6) disseminate results. Next steps include the enforcement of a climate of transparency and accountability, with leaders prioritizing and financially supporting workforce gender equity. This scientific and data-driven approach will accelerate progress and help pave a pathway to better health care and science.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Schaechter, Judith D.
    ;
    Jacobs, Jeremy W.
    ;
    Booth, Garrett S.
    ;
    Dupont, William D.
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.
  • Item type:Publication,
    h-Index and Academic Rank by Gender Among Breast Surgery Fellowship Faculty Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Radford, Diane M.
    ;
    Parangi, Sareh
    ;
    Tu, Chao
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty.