PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14

Male-dominated participation in the first two years of medical school: A mismatch between reality and perception Open PDF
(Informa UK Limited, 2026-02-26)
Park, Connor C.
;
Brendes, Keith D.
;
Lundstrom, Karrie
;
O’Neil, Kiley
;
Jayaram, Maya A.
Introduction: Although women now comprise most U.S. medical students, male physicians continue to dominate leadership roles, earn higher salaries, and hold more full professorships. These disparities suggest that cultural dynamics contributing to gender inequities may emerge early in medical training. This mixed-methods study investigated gender differences in perceived and actual participation in mandatory educational sessions during the first two years of medical school. Methods: First, a survey assessed student perceptions of gendered participation across mandatory first- and second-year educational sessions. Subsequently, these sessions were observed for eight weeks at a single institution. Observed sessions included full-class Didactic and Social/Ethical sessions (120 students) and smaller Clinical sessions (30 students). For each participation instance (asking or answering a question), the gender of the student and instructor was recorded. Students could opt out. Results: Survey responses indicated that most students perceived no gender-based differences in Social/Ethical or Clinical sessions. Female students, however, reported that men participated more frequently in Didactic sessions, while male students perceived no disparity (p = 0.001). Observational data showed male students accounted for 72.4% of 311 participation events (p < 0.001). Men contributed significantly more in Didactic (81.2%) and Social/Ethical sessions (67.1%; both p < 0.001), with no significant difference in Clinical sessions (54% male; p = 0.19). Male participation decreased in sessions led by female instructors compared with male (p = 0.036) or mixed-gender faculty (p = 0.023). Discussion: Despite objective gender disparities in participation, most first- and second-year students did not perceive differences. Notably, only female students perceived this discrepancy in their pre-observation surveys, and only in the context of didactic sessions. This imbalance may reinforce early professional norms favoring male visibility and engagement, perpetuating gender inequities in academic medicine. Addressing these dynamics is essential for fostering equitable learning environments and promoting diverse leadership in medicine.
Trends of female authorship in speech-language pathology publications over the last decade Open PDF
(BMJ, 2025-07)
Ganesan, Sandhya
;
Ferraro, Tatiana
;
Smaoui, Sana
;
Zitoun, Leena
;
Pramanik, Lara
Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyse the speech-language pathology (SLP) literature from 2012 to 2022 and evaluate authorship trends and factors associated with gender disparities. Design and outcome measures Authorship across journals published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) was evaluated. Outcomes collected from each article included the gender of the first and senior authors, author department affiliations, study type, reported funding source and the country of origin. Three sets of linear regression models were explored to determine the probability of male first authorship, of male senior authorship, and of a study being funded. Results A total of 2754 articles were identified for inclusion. The majority of the literature was authored by females, with 77% of first authors and 68% of senior authors being female. Studies with a male senior author were shown to be 4.05–4.67 times more likely to have a male first author than with a female senior author. Male senior authors were over-represented relative to their proportion of ASHA membership compared with female senior authors. Male authorship was associated with certain subtopics, including voice, stuttering and motor speech. Funding probability decreased for all authors regardless of gender between 2012 and 2022. Conclusions Implicit gender bias and societal gender stereotypes lead to a greater number of women in the field of SLP; the same biases and stereotypes often limit the research productivity and academic leadership potential of women in the field. Addressing these biases and stereotypes is vital to move towards gender equity in the field.
Black Women in Medical Education Publishing: Bibliometric and Testimonio Accounts Using Intersectionality Methodology Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-10-23)
Seide, Witzard
;
Maggio, Lauren A.
;
Artino, Anthony R.
;
Leroux, Todd
;
Konopasky, Abigail
Background Black women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting career progression. Objective To complement qualitative accounts of Black women authors in the medical education literature with a quantitative account of their representation. We used statistical modeling to estimate the representation of Black women authors in medical education publishing as compared to other groups. Design An intersectional methodology employing bibliometric analysis and testimonio reflection. Subjects US-based authors of journal articles published in medical education journals between 2000 and 2020. Main Measures Author race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed using Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models by first and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results were contextualized via the “testimonio” account of a Black woman author. Key Results Of 21,945 unique authors, Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) published far fewer first and last author papers than white women and men. In addition, major MeSH terms used by Black women authors reveal little overlap with highly ranked medical education topics. The testimonio further narrated struggles with belonging and racial identity. Conclusion This study revealed that Black women are underrepresented in medical education publishing. We believe that dismantling oppressive structures in the publishing ecosystem and the field is imperative for achieving equity. Additionally, further experiential accounts are needed to contextualize this quantitative account and understand underrepresentation in medical education publishing.
Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review Open PDF
(2021)
Misra, Vaidehi
;
Safi, Frozan
;
Brewerton, Kathryn A.
;
Wu, Wei
;
Mason, Robin
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.
Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review Open PDF
(2021)
Madden, Caoimhe
;
O'Malley, Róisín
;
O'Connor, Paul
;
O'Dowd, Emily
;
Byrne, Dara
CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
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.
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.
Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Ha, Giang L.
;
Lehrer, Eric J.
;
Wang, Ming
;
Holliday, Emma
;
Jagsi, Reshma
Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
Gender Disparity in Earliest Phase of Academic Surgical Training: An Area for Intervention Open PDF
(2023)
Zheng, H.
;
Al-Refaie, W.
;
Chou, J.
;
Galli, F.
;
Lai, V.
BACKGROUND: To overcome persistent gender disparities in academic surgery, it is critical to examine the earliest phase of surgical training. This national study sought to assess whether gender disparities also existed among surgical interns, as a proxy for medical school research experience in both quantity and quality. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2021 to 2022 public information of 1,493 US-graduated categorical general surgery interns, a bibliometric evaluation was conducted to assess medical school research experience. Multivariable linear regressions with response log-transformed were performed to evaluate the impact of intern gender on (1) total number of peer-reviewed publications, (2) total impact factor (TIF), and (3) adjusted TIF based on authorship placement (aTIF). Back-transformed estimates were presented. RESULTS: Of these interns, 52.3% were female. Significant differences were observed in TIF (male 6.4 vs female 5.3, p = 0.029), aTIF (male 10.8 vs female 8.7, p = 0.035), gender concordance with senior authors (male 79.9% vs female 34.1%, p < 0.001), Hirsch index (male 21.0 vs female 18.0, p = 0.026), and the geographic region of their medical schools (p = 0.036). Multivariable linear regressions revealed that female interns were associated with lower TIF (0.858, p = 0.033) and aTIF (0.851, p = 0.044). Due to a significant gender-by-region interaction, adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that male interns in the Northeast had approximately 70% higher TIF (1.708, p = 0.003) and aTIF (1.697, p = 0.013) than female interns in the South. CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities existed in the quality of research experience in the earliest phase of surgical training. These timely results call for additional interventions by the stakeholders of graduate medical education. Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review Open PDF
(2023)
Tricco, AC
;
Nincic, V
;
Darvesh, N
;
Rios, P
;
Khan, PA
Objectives To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.Design Scoping review.Participants Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measures Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.Results Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).Conclusions Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results