PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

2022 - 2026106

Settings

Start date: 2022Subject: search.filters.subject.Female

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 106
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female Authorship in “Women in STEM” fields: A bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (Oxford University Press (OUP), 2026)
    Swanson, Morgan E
    ;
    Liebl, Andrea L
    Women in STEM and STEM-related fields face many issues preventing their sustained inclusion and success, from as early as childhood. Many issues persist into adulthood and careers, including pay disparities, hostile workplace interactions, workload imbalances, and uneven expectations in domestic roles. A growing body of literature seeks to address and analyze female disparities by studying and publishing research related to societal and cultural issues faced by women in STEM. However, the gender of the authors of literature focusing on this type of research also matters as a woman's experience in STEM might provide a different context; equally, male allyship is imperative to furthering gains made in the field. To determine what proportion of authors publishing on female disparity in STEM fields are women, we employed a large-scale bibliometric study to examine the trends in the proportion of three metrics of female authorship on publications related to "Women in STEM" topics; specifically, we analyzed the total female authors, female first authors, and female last authors of 7240 published manuscripts. Literature published between 2000 and 2024 was accessed using a search engine with nine search terms related to issues facing women in STEM, including terms about gender parity, gender inequity, gender attrition, pay gaps, the leaky pipeline, student gender bias, and motherhood in STEM. Overall, the proportion of female authors in any position, including specifically as both first and last author, increased over the period of our study. Our results also indicate a sustained overrepresentation of female authors during the latter portions of our analysis. These results highlight an increase in female authorship on "Women in STEM" literature and demonstrate that female researchers are becoming more central in studying these topics. Although increasing female participation in subjects related to women in STEM is important for perspective, context, and solutions, male inclusion is also important to ensure buy-in in the workplace and allow an equal distribution of labor.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Advancing gender equity in gynecology and obstetrics: perspectives from the German workforce Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-08-27)
    Neuhold, Jasmin
    ;
    von Versen-Höynck, Frauke
    PURPOSE: Despite the high proportion of women in medical education and clinical training, female physicians remain underrepresented in leadership and academic positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics in Germany. This study investigates structural and cultural factors contributing to this disparity and highlights trends in workforce composition and recognition in the field. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis using publicly available data from the German Federal Statistical Office and the German Medical Association (2004-2024), as well as database from the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). RESULTS: In 2023, women comprised 73% of gynecologists in Germany. Female representation declined with advancing career stage. In 2024, 82% of resident physicians at German university hospitals were women, while they held 26% of department head positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics. Female membership in the DGGG reached 75%, with 40% on the executive board. In 2022, 65% of major awards went to men, while women received most poster and lecture prizes (61%) at the biannual conference. CONCLUSIONS: While gender diversity in the clinical workforce has improved, systemic inequities persist in academic and leadership domains. Addressing these requires structural reforms, increased transparency in recruitment and promotion processes, and targeted programs supporting women's professional advancement. Enhanced visibility, mentorship, and inclusive institutional policies are essential to ensure gender-equitable development in the specialty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender equality in the Italian academic context. Results from the IGEA project Open PDF 
    (Frontiers Media SA, 2023-02-21)
    Deiana, Giovanna
    ;
    Dettori, Marco
    ;
    Muresu, Narcisa
    ;
    Puci, Mariangela Valentina
    ;
    Saderi, Laura
    The Innovation for Gender Equality in Academia (IGEA) project is focused on the analysis of the gender composition in academia, on the identification of the health needs of the academic population and on the assessment of their organizational wellbeing, in order to promote equal working conditions and opportunities. The study, focused on the identification of health needs, involved the construction of an ad hoc questionnaire in order to collect the socio-demographic characteristics and the perception of working environment of the participants. Differences between males and females were evaluated by the Mann-Whitney test, and Pearson Chi-Square or Fisher exact tests as appropriate, highlighting significant differences between genders regarding the occurrence of anxiety, panic, irritation and annoyance related to work activities. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the perception of work-related anxiety/panic, showing a direct association with the difficulty in work performance and the work-related stress during the pandemic period, whereas, an indirect association was found with job satisfaction and the feeling of being appreciated by colleagues. Occupational stress can increase the risk of developing physical and mental conditions, also affecting work performance and absenteeism. It is therefore fundamental to plan targeted interventions, implement policies and specific actions, in order to avoid and reduce any differences related to gender.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals. Open PDF 
    (2026-05-01)
    Lee, Emily Hyunmin
    ;
    Gomes, Zoya
    ;
    Kim, Jinny Minji
    ;
    Liblik, Kiera
    ;
    Travis, Nicole
    INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles. RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022. CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications Open PDF 
    (Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2026-06)
    Barnes, Leandra A.
    ;
    Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
    ;
    Wind, Stefanie A.
    ;
    Nord, Kristin M.
    ;
    Laidlaw, Kathrina
    BACKGROUND: The impact of rater bias in applicant selection for residency interviews using holistic review is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure faculty raters' bias toward applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status in their recommendations to offer residency interviews. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, applicant (n=3875) and faculty rater (n=69) data within a single institution's dermatology residency application database from 2014 to 2023 were examined for differences in rater judgments to interview applicants as measured by logits (ie, a standardized unit of scoring difference) using the many-facet Rasch model, a statistical method that accounts for variations among raters, applicants, and scoring for applicant gender (23% women, 14% men, and 63% unknown) and URiM status (26% White, 21% non-White non-URiM, 12% URiM, 41% unknown). RESULTS: Rater bias, as measured in logits using the rater severity measure, was minimal for applicant gender (-0.12, 0.08 logits) and URiM status (-0.07, 0.04 logits). However, raters were more lenient (ie, likely to favor an interview) when the applicant's and rater's gender (-1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (-0.46 logits, SE 0.05) were concordant. Conversely, raters were more severe (ie, unlikely to favor an interview) when discordant on gender (1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (0.46 logits, SE 0.05). More than 50% of individual raters exhibited substantial gender bias, and approximately 33% for URiM status bias when concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Raters were more likely to favor offering interview invitations to applicants with concordant gender or URiM status and less likely to favor interviewing applicants with discordant gender or URiM status.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in guidelines and recommendations on rheumatology in Argentina: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-05)
    Navarro, Belén
    ;
    Sequeira, Gabriel
    ;
    Kerzberg, Eduardo
    Abstract Introduction Women constitute the majority in Argentine rheumatology research, but their participation in rheumatology guidelines and recommendations (RGRs) has not been evaluated. Objective To analyze women's representation in RGRs published between 2010 and 2024 that included at least one Argentine rheumatologist. Methods Cross-sectional bibliometric study of rheumatology guidelines and recommendations published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, including at least one rheumatologist affiliated with an Argentine center. Publications were identified through searches in PubMed, the Revista Argentina de Reumatología, and Google Scholar using predefined affiliation-based keywords. The main study variables were author gender, first and corresponding authorship, guideline classification national (NAC) or international (INT), and declared conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. Descriptive analyses were performed, and group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test and chi-square test. Results Eighty-seven RGRs were analyzed (79% INT), with a median publication year of 2021. Of 526 authors, 274 (52%) were women. In NAC RGRs, 57% of authors were women versus 43% in INT (p = 0.003). Among 25 first authors based in Argentina, 11 (44%) were women; among 12 corresponding authors, 5 (42%) were women. COIs were reported in 24 RGRs, totaling 59 declarations, 37 (63%) from men. Conclusions Although women are the majority among Argentine rheumatology researchers, their representation decreases in international publications and leadership roles. Conflicts of interest show a gender bias favoring men. Resumen Introducción Las mujeres son mayoría en la investigación reumatológica argentina, pero no se ha evaluado su participación en las guías y recomendaciones en reumatología (GRR). Objetivo Analizar la representación femenina en las GRR publicadas entre 2010 y 2024 que incluyeran al menos un/a reumatólogo/a con afiliación en Argentina (ARG). Métodos Estudio bibliométrico transversal de GRR en reumatología publicadas entre el 1 de enero de 2010 y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 que incluyeron al menos un/a reumatólogo/a ARG. Las publicaciones fueron identificadas mediante búsqueda en PubMed, Revista Argentina de Reumatología y Google Scholar utilizando combinaciones predefinidas en el campo de afiliación. Se registraron el género de los autores, la autoría principal y de correspondencia, la clasificación de la guía como nacional (NAC) o internacional (INT), y los conflictos de interés (COI) declarados. Se realizaron análisis descriptivos y comparativos (Mann–Whitney U y chi-cuadrado). Resultados Se analizaron 87 GRR (79% INT), con mediana de publicación en 2021. De 526 autores, 274 (52%) fueron mujeres. En las GRR NAC, el 57% de los autores fueron mujeres vs 43% en las INT (p = 0,003). Entre los primeros autores ARG, el 44% fueron mujeres; entre los autores de correspondencia, el 42%. Se declararon COI en 24 GRR (59 declaraciones), 63% correspondientes a hombres. Conclusiones La participación femenina es mayoritaria en las GRR NAC, menor en las INT y en los roles de liderazgo. Los COI muestran un sesgo de género favorable a los hombres.
  • 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- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF 
    (California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
    Manes, Akash
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Knight, Starr
    ;
    Raja, Ali S.
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
  • 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.