PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2020Subject: search.filters.subject.Medical Faculty

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 31
  • 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 Disparities in Interventional Pain Medicine: Representation, Leadership, and Compensation Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2026-05-06)
    Catalanotto, Marissa
    ;
    Kim, Serena Jiyeon
    ;
    Javed, Saba
    INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing representation of women in medicine overall, significant gender disparities persist in procedural specialties such as interventional pain medicine. Women remain underrepresented as speakers at national pain conferences and in leadership roles. Additionally, a pay gap between female and male pain physicians remains. This study aims to objectively demonstrate the above-mentioned inequities. METHODS: National conference faculty were analyzed across five major pain societies (ASRA, NANS, AAPM, ASIPP, ASPN) from 2020 to 2024 annual conference agendas. Gender was assigned based on publicly available information. Leadership roles were assessed by identifying the gender of pain fellowship program directors and pain medicine department chairs. Lastly, using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Salary Report (2021-2024), we examined the compensation gap and difference in salary growth rates between genders. RESULTS: Across national conferences, only 25% of speakers were female, with ASRA demonstrating the most consistent female representation. Of the pain medicine fellowship programs studied, there were 36 (32.7%) female program directors and 25 (23.8%) female department chairs. Programs led by female program directors had significantly higher proportions of female faculty (OR = 1.97, CI [1.45, 2.68], p < 0.0001). Salary data revealed that at every academic rank, women in pain medicine faculty earned less than their male counterparts. Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference between the salary growth rates of male and female associate professors between 2021 and 2024 (F = 12.25, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Substantial gender disparities remain in visibility at national conferences, academic leadership, and compensation in pain medicine. Female-led academic programs demonstrate more gender-diverse faculties, highlighting the importance of representation in leadership. Focused efforts are needed to promote mentorship, equitable hiring, and transparency in pay and speaking opportunities to foster a more inclusive field.
  • 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,
    Gender-Based Disparities in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Physician Compensation in 2023 Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-03-11)
    Chauhan, Dhun
    ;
    DeYoung, Joshua K.
    ;
    Goodrich, Ezra
    ;
    Templeton, Kimberly
    ;
    Day, Charles S.
    Background: Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the least diverse specialties in medicine. Parity in opportunity and recognition are key factors in attracting and retaining a diverse group of individuals in the field. The primary purpose of this study was to assess gender-based discrepancies in total salary compensation by rank for academic orthopaedic surgery faculty. Methods: Aggregate data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for fiscal year 2023. Mean compensation was compared for orthopaedic surgery faculty and total surgery faculty at all academic ranks based on gender and race. Results: Men received markedly higher total compensation for all ranks except chair within orthopaedic surgery. At the instructor level, men earned an average annual income of $554,245 while women received $229,204, demonstrating a significant pay gap (P = 0.0019). At the assistant professor (men: $628,346; women: $475,857), associate professor (men: $732,381; women: $575,877), and professor (men: $743,822; women: $472,140) levels, there existed significant pay disparities (P < 0.0001 for all three academic levels, respectively). At the chief position, men earned an average of $1,185,873 annually while women received $596,270 (P = 0.0006). Aggregate data for other surgical specialties demonstrated similar results, with women receiving lower total compensation at all ranks compared with men. Conclusion: This analysis of the 2023 American Medical Colleges Faculty Salary Report demonstrates a notable pay differential between men and women in orthopaedic surgery and surgical specialties, in general, across multiple academic levels including instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chief of division. Although there has been increasing awareness of gender-based compensation disparities within surgical specialties, particularly in orthopaedic surgery, these disparities are still clearly present.
  • Item type:Publication,
    United States Medical School Academic Faculty Workforce Diversity, Institutional Characteristics, and Geographical Distributions From 2014-2018
    (2022)
    Ogunyemi, Dotun
    ;
    Okekpe, C. Camille
    ;
    Barrientos, Devin R.
    ;
    Bui, Tina
    ;
    Au, Melanie N.
    Purpose Academic healthcare workforce diversity is important in addressing health disparities. Our goal was to evaluate trends and associations in faculty diversity of United States (US) medical schools over a five-year period. Methods We analyzed the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster data of 151 US medical schools from 2014-2018. Outcome faculty variables were female gender, underrepresented in medicine (UiM), age, and professorial representation. Predictor variables included geographical distributions, and institutional characteristics. Statistical analysis included Jonckheere-Terpstra test, ANOVA, and regression analysis. Results Female faculty increased from 37.6% to 40.4% (p<0.001), senior faculty (age >60 years) from 22.6% to 25.9% (p=0.001) while UiM faculty stayed relatively flat from 9.74% to 10.08% (p=0.773). UiM [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.39, p=0.015], and female faculty (aOR=0.3, p=0.001) had independently significantly decreased associations with professorial representation, while senior faculty had increased associations (aOR=3.82, p<0.001). Significant independent differences occurred in female, UiM, and professorial faculty distributions within US regions; Hispanic faculty were highest in Southwest (6.57%) and lowest in Midwest region (1.59%), while African-American faculty were highest in Southeast (8.15%) but lowest in the West (3.12%). UiM faculty had significantly independent decreased associations with MD/PhD degree (aOR=0.30, p=0.004) and higher US ranking institutions (aOR=0.45, p=0.009). Conclusions From 2014 to 2018, female faculty increased modestly while the UiM faculty trend remained flat. Female and UiM faculty were less represented at the professor level. UiM faculty were less represented in higher-ranking institutions. Geographic location is associated with faculty diversity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Marhoffer, Elizabeth A.
    ;
    Ein-Alshaeba, Samer
    ;
    Grimshaw, Alyssa A.
    ;
    Holleck, Jürgen L.
    ;
    Rudikoff, Benjamin
    PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Toward Gender Equity in Academic Promotions Open PDF 
    (American Medical Association, 2021)
    Marcotte, Leah M
    ;
    Arora, Vineet M
    ;
    Ganguli, Ishani
    Promotion in academicmedicinedrives career opportunities, including leadership roles and salary increases. Yet women physicians face slower promotional timelines and are less likely to reach associate or full professorship compared with their male counterparts, a gap that has not meaningfully changed in more than 3 decades. 1In 2019, only 26% of full professors and 39% of associate professors in US medical schools were women despite representing 48% of assistant professors and 43% of all full-time US medical school faculty. 2 These disparities are even worse for women in underrepresentedminority groups. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a worrisome backslide.3 In leaving unrealized the full potential of female faculty, these disparities are detrimental to medicine as a whole. The promotion gapmaybepartiallyexplainedbyoutdated promotion processes that were developed when the physician workforce was largely male but now serve to disadvantage women throughout their academic careers. Too often we put the onus on women to change their behavior, but closing this gap will require institutions to make promotion systems and policies more equitable. In this Viewpoint, we unpack structural barriers to promotion, specifically for female junior faculty going from assistant to associate professor. We consider how institutionscan rethinkpromotionand reverseharms that were precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic to promote gender equity leading up to promotion and at the time of promotion.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Lufler, Rebecca S.
    ;
    McNulty, Margaret A.
    The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Li, Ben
    ;
    Jacob-Brassard, Jean
    ;
    Dossa, Fahima
    ;
    Salata, Konrad
    ;
    Kishibe, Teruko
    OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Non-ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) Otolaryngology Fellowship Leadership Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Leyden, Kara
    ;
    Soeder, Mason
    ;
    Holdaway, Matthew
    ;
    Scagnelli, Robert
    ;
    Mortensen, Melissa
    OBJECTIVE: Women are underrepresented among practicing otolaryngology physicians with increasing disparities in leadership roles and higher levels of professional attainment in academic medicine. The purpose of this study is to determine the gender gap among fellowship directors within specific otolaryngology subspecialties, and how this compares to disparities among all academic appointments held by otolaryngologists. Additionally, we seek to better understand how years practiced, H-index, professorship status, and academic productivity differ between men and women in fellowship director roles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. Publicly available data from non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships was collected from department websites and Doximity including gender, years of practice, and professor status of fellowship directors. Scopus was used to find H-index for identified fellowship directors. Fisher's Exact tests were used to determine if significant gender disparity existed between each fellowship and academic otolaryngology as whole. H-index and years of practice were plotted for men and women comparing the slope of lines of best fit as a measure of academic productivity. SETTING: Non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships in the US. PARTICIPANTS: Fellowship directors in non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships. RESULTS: Among 174 fellowship positions in our analysis, head and neck (17.3% women), laryngology (17.2% women), rhinology (5.7% women), and facial plastics (8.1% women) had significantly lower overall women representation compared to academic otolaryngology (36.6% women) (p < 0.05). As fellowship directors, women were significantly more productive than men given years practiced and H-index (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities among otolaryngologists are amplified in the role of fellowship directors compared to broader academic otolaryngology. This is true despite women in these roles demonstrating higher academic productivity.