PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2020Subject: search.filters.subject.Biomedical Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 19
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Research Gap in Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery: Gender-specific Disparities in Submission of Abstracts to the German Congress of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery from 2015 to 2024 Open PDF 
    (Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2025-04-30)
    Vogel, Carolina
    ;
    Bertsch, Vera
    ;
    Rollmann, Mika F.
    ;
    Histing, Tina
    ;
    Braun, Benedikt J.
    Gender-specific differences also affect the subject of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (O&T). While the proportion of women studying medicine is steadily increasing, the proportion of female surgeons in O&T is only 18.6%. This underrepresentation affects not only clinics but also research and is reflected in participation in scientific annual meetings such as the German Congress for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DKOU).This retrospective study examined the gender differences in abstract submissions to the DKOU from 2015 to 2024. The anonymised data were subjected to examination regarding gender, role in submission and academic title.The overall participation of women in the 82,813 abstracts was 20%. The proportion of women among submitters was 23.3%, among presenters 24.5% and among co-authors 18.2%. In the analysis of the female cohort alone, women were more likely to be submitters and presenters than in the male cohort (p < 0.001). The proportion of female participation in abstract submissions increased by an average of 0.5% per year over the study period. However, women were significantly underrepresented at higher academic degrees, such as habilitations (7.4%), professorships (7.6%) and university professorships (5.2%).The results show that the proportion of women submitting abstracts to the DKOU largely corresponds to the percentage in the field of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (18.6% in 2022), reflecting the overall gender disparity in this specialty. If this trend analysis were applied to the general development of gender parity in orthopaedics and trauma surgery, gender-equitable staffing of medical positions could not be achieved before the year 2087. To accelerate this development, targeted measures to promote women in orthopaedics and trauma surgery are necessary. This includes dismantling structural barriers and implementing specific support programs for female surgeons pursuing academic careers.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are there gender differences in academic medical career aspirations related to research, mentoring and discrimination? A national cross-sectional study of French medical residents Open PDF 
    (BMJ, 2026-05)
    Deledalle, Aurore
    ;
    Congard, Anne
    ;
    Bour, Valentine
    ;
    Sarda, Élisa
    ;
    Cohen, Fleur
    OBJECTIVES: Academic medical careers remain marked by persistent gender inequalities, despite the growing feminisation of the medical workforce. The objective of this study was to examine whether gender differences exist in key individual and institutional determinants of academic medical career aspirations among medical residents, including research motivation, mentoring, work centrality, self-efficacy, perceived discrimination and stress. DESIGN: This was a national cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted across 36 medical schools in France. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1570 medical residents (997 women and 573 men) voluntarily participated between November 2022 and February 2023. All participants completed validated self-report questionnaires. There were no exclusion criteria beyond being enrolled in a French residency programme. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes towards research (interest, motivation, significance) were measured using the Scale of Attitudes towards Research. Mentoring was assessed with the Mentor-Mentee Perception Questionnaire, work centrality with Hirschfeld and Feild's scale, self-efficacy with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, perceived discrimination with the Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Experiences of Academic Medical Faculty instrument and stress with the Perceived Stress Scale. Gender differences were analysed using t-tests or χ² tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Compared with men, women reported lower research motivation (mean (SD) 21.0 (5.5) vs 22.8 (5.5); padj=0.011), lower research interest (27.1 (5.5) vs 28.1 (5.7); padj=0.011), lower work centrality (26.7 (7.0) vs 28.2 (8.1); padj=0.011) and lower self-efficacy (28.3 (5.2) vs 29.9 (5.0); padj=0.011). Women were less likely to report having a mentor (38.5% vs 44.5%; padj=0.02). They also reported substantially higher levels of experienced gender discrimination (22.8% vs 3.8%; padj=0.005), sexual harassment (57.7% vs 18.2%; padj=0.005) and perceived stress (8.48 (3.29) vs 7.27 (3.43); padj=0.011) CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences were observed across several individual and institutional factors associated with academic medical career aspirations. Reduced access to mentoring and greater exposure to discrimination and stress among women may contribute to lower research motivation and self-efficacy. These findings highlight the need for institutional strategies addressing mentoring, workplace culture and equity to support gender parity in academic medicine.
  • 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,
    Sex and Gender Considerations in Orthopaedic Research Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2024-10-08)
    Bechtold, Joan E.
    ;
    Bauer, Thomas W.
    ;
    Clayton, Janine
    ;
    Foucher, Kharma C.
    ;
    Graves, Leland
    JBJS convened a symposium to discuss the reporting of sex and gender in research studies as an imperative to improve research methods and results to benefit all patients. Barriers to improved reporting include a lack of societal and cultural acceptance of its need; a lack of education regarding appropriate terminology and appropriate statistical methods and efficient study designs; a need for increased research funding to support larger group sizes; unknown concordance of cell and animal models with humans to reflect biologic variables such as sex; and a lack of understanding of key considerations of gender, race, and other social determinants of health and how these factors intersect. Attention to developing and disseminating best-practice statistical methods and to educating investigators (at all career levels), reviewers, funders, editors, and staff in their proper implementation will aid reporting. Concomitantly, well-designed studies with sufficient rigor and adequate resources are essential to enable meaningful and reproducible research. Existing recommendations, such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, provide valuable guidance that can be applied across the research ecosystem. Academic institutions and private foundations are likely groups to assist in scientific and institutional review board guidance and study recruitment and pilot funding to generate meaningful power estimates, and to serve as sources for additional funding and presentation of workshops, educational events, and seminars. All of this needs to be conducted on an ongoing basis to ensure that sex and gender are considered in scientific analyses, where relevant.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Spine Surgeon Leadership of Clinical Trials for Degenerative Spine Disease Research Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-08-28)
    Silvestre, Jason
    ;
    Walker, Jasmine J.
    ;
    Kang, James D.
    ;
    Ravinsky, Robert A.
    ;
    Lawrence, James P.
    Introduction: Despite increasing awareness, women remain underrepresented in academic spine surgery. This study assessed whether women were equitably represented among spine surgeon PIs of clinical trials for degenerative spine disease research. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of spine surgeon principal investigators (PIs) in the United States (2015 to 2022). ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for the most common diagnoses and surgeries for degenerative spine diseases. Characteristics of spine surgeon PIs were collected from academic profiles. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for men and women PIs relative to their prevalence among spine surgery faculty at accredited training programs. A PPR of 0.8 to 1.2 indicated equitable sex representation. A PPR <0.8 was defined as underrepresentation and >1.2 as overrepresentation. Results: In total, 129 spine surgeon PIs of 91 clinical trials were included in this study. Overall, there were 125 male (97%) and four female (3%) spine surgeon PIs. Overall, women were underrepresented among spine surgeon PIs (PPR = 0.64), whereas men had equitable representation (PPR = 1.02). From 2015 to 2018, female spine surgeons were underrepresented (PPR = 0.33), but achieved equitable representation from 2019 to 2022 (PPR = 0.95). Male spine surgeons had consistently equitable representation across the study period (PPR range 1.00 to 1.03). Women had equitable representation at assistant (PPR = 1.08) and associate (PPR = 0.31) professor ranks, but were underrepresented at the full professor rank (PPR = 0). PIs were funded by industry (54%), academic institution (44%), and US Federal (2%) sources. No differences were observed in funding sources by sex ( P = 0.36). Discussion: There are a limited number of female spine surgeon PIs for degenerative spine disease clinical trials, which may have negative implications on the vitality of the specialty moving forward. Future investigations are needed to understand the barriers women face in obtaining clinical trial leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Mastrorocco, Elisabetta
    ;
    Terrin, Maria
    ;
    Migliorisi, Giulia
    ;
    Masoni, Benedetta
    ;
    Farinola, Valeria
    BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Krukowski, Rebecca A.
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Cardel, Michelle I.
    Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2022)
    Krstacic, J.E.
    ;
    Carr, B.M.
    ;
    Yaligar, A.R.
    ;
    Kuruvilla, A.S.
    ;
    Helali, J.S.
    Introduction In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). Materials and methods Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. Results Compared to 37.23% of 2002 – 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women’s first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and coauthors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). Discussion Since 2002, this authorship “gender disparity chasm” has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet’s 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation. © 2022 Krstacic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women Open PDF 
    (2024)
    James, Alex
    ;
    Buelow, Franca
    ;
    Gibson, Liam
    ;
    Brower, Ann
    We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.
  • Item type:Publication,
    What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Hiller, Kathryn P.
    ;
    Boulos, Alexandre
    ;
    Tran, Megan M.
    ;
    Cruz, Aristides I.
    BACKGROUND: The gender gap among authors publishing research in journals is narrowing in general medicine and various medical and surgical subspecialties. However, little is known regarding the gender gap among authors publishing research in orthopaedic journals. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women first and last authors of original research articles in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017? (2) What is the proportion women first authors of original research by orthopaedic subspecialty from 2006 to 2017? METHODS: A sample of original research publications from the even numbered months of issues of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume (JBJS), and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) were examined from 2006 to 2017. These journals were selected because of their clinical relevance, target audience, and relatively high impact factors. Over the studied period, a single author extracted and reviewed pertinent data, including the gender of the first and last authors and the primary subspecialty of the research article. The senior author refereed disputes regarding the primary subspecialty of each included article. The proportion of women first and last authors in each journal was compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. The proportion of women first authors according to orthopaedic subspecialty in which an article primarily focused its study was also compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 6292 articles, 13% (800) of which were first-authored by women and 10% (604) of which were last-authored by women. From 2006 to 2017, the overall percentage of women first authors in the examined journals increased (from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2017; odds ratio 1.6563 [95 % CI 1.4945 to 1.8356]; p < 0.001). Overall across the period studied, the percentage of women first authors in JBJS was 14% while 12% of first authors in CORR and AJSM were women. Regarding subspecialty, the percentage of women first authorship ranged from 9% in the shoulder subspecialty to 21% in pediatric orthopaedics across all three journals. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the percentage of women first authors in articles published in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017. This observed increase is encouraging in terms of promoting gender diversity in orthopaedics and may be reflective of a modest increase in the number of women entering the orthopaedic workforce. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Between 2006 and 2017, the overall number of women first authors in CORR, JBJS, and AJSM modestly increased. This may suggest a nascent narrowing of the gender gap in orthopaedics. Although this is a welcome finding in terms of promoting and encouraging gender diversity in this man-dominated field, the overall percentage of women authorship remains modest, at best. Future investigations should examine whether the modest increase in women first authorship over time found in this study translates into an increased percentage of senior/last authorship in the future, as this may have implications for women orthopaedic workforce retention.