PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
9 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Program Director Gender and Female Representation in United States Anesthesiology Residency Programs: A Website Content Analysis Open PDF(Informa UK Limited, 2026-07) ;Dankievitch, Korinne ;Malgieri, Christopher James ;Corman, Benjamin HP ;Hayward, GeoffreyArgo, JonathanPURPOSE: Female program directors (PD) have been suggested to influence gender representation and recruitment; however, their impact within anesthesiology residency programs remains unclear. This study evaluated whether PD gender is associated with differences in female resident and faculty representation and anesthesiology residency program website content. METHODS: Anesthesiology residency programs participating in the 2024-2025 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match were identified through the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA). Program websites were evaluated for 13 predefined criteria across three domains: leadership and strategic vision, representation, and resources. Program characteristics, including full-time faculty and residents, were extracted. Scores across domains were compared by program director gender. Data presented as mean (standard deviation) or percentage (%). RESULTS: A total of 160 programs were included in the analysis; 38% were led by female and 62% by male program directors. Women represented 35% of residents and full-time faculty across all programs. Programs led by female program directors was associated with lower female representation among residents (27.9% vs. 42.8%) and full-time faculty (27.4% vs. 44.4%, p<0.001) compared to male-led programs. The mean overall website content score was 6.45 ± 3.11, with no difference by program director gender (6.82 ± 3.04 vs. 6.21 ± 3.13, p=0.253). However, representation domain scores were higher in programs with female program directors (2.20 ± 0.95 vs.1.82 ± 1.06; p=0.042). CONCLUSION: Women represent more than one-third of anesthesiology program directors, residents, and full-time faculty, reflecting continued progress toward gender equity within the specialty. However, programs led by female program directors had lower female representation among residents and full-time faculty, despite stronger emphasis on visual and descriptive representation within website content. Together, these findings suggest that while leadership equity remains important, recruitment, representation, and workforce equity are shaped by broader structural and institutional factors beyond program director gender alone.Item type:Publication, More than a decade with ‘gender on the agenda’: have we made progress? Open PDF(Elsevier BV, 2026-04) ;Colvin, LesleyKemp, HarrietAs female clinical academics and members of the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), we recognise the importance of gender equity, which remains an issue in academic medicine, despite the increase in the proportion of women in medical schools throughout the world. This inequity is most apparent at senior leadership levels, with the number of female professors in anaesthesia remaining in single digits in the UK, and at about 25% of full professors in the USA. A strong publication record is an important promotion metric in academia. In a 2013 analysis, only 39% of first and senior authors published in the BJA were women, whereas in our recent analysis, this proportion improved to 54%. The benefits of having increased representation of women as leaders are unequivocal, requiring active strategies to accelerate any progress that has been made. Initiatives such as the current BJA Special Issue on Women in Anaesthesia Research are key elements in this process.Item type:Publication, Understanding professional disparities in academic anesthesiology: a single-center gender-based survey study Open PDF(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-12-07) ;Donovan, Anne L. ;Chang, Joyce ;Sinskey, JinaSchwartz, RachelBackground Women in academic anesthesiology face numerous structural and cultural barriers that impede academic advancement and threaten career longevity. Understanding the impact of these challenges can allow steps to be taken to improve gender equity and retention in academic anesthesiology. Methods This study describes a voluntary, anonymous survey distributed to faculty members in the Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Care at an urban tertiary care academic Health System with a variety of anesthetizing locations across six hospitals. All clinical faculty members in the Department, regardless of gender identity, were invited to participate ( n = 209). The 57-question survey, which was administered over a 3-week time period in 2024, examined the relationship between demographic variables and professional factors relating to career progression. Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics to compare responses between both gender and career stage peer groups. Using inductive thematic analysis, the authors analyzed open-ended survey data and developed themes that will be used to develop future improvement initiatives. Results The survey response rate was 35% (73/209). Respondents were well-balanced in terms of gender (52.1% women, 45.2% men, 2.7% other) and other demographic groups. Women respondents more often remained at an assistant professor level after 6–10 years of practice (36.4% vs. 0%), reported fewer first or senior author publications if in practice 5 + years (70% vs. 33.3%), and described non-promotable work responsibilities in early- and mid-career time points (85% vs. 67%). Women less often reported receiving an accelerated promotion (33.3% vs. 44.8%); holding departmental (50% vs. 58.6%), institutional (17.9% vs. 35.7%), or national (34.6% vs. 44.8%) leadership positions; and having participated on an editorial board (26.5% vs. 37.9%). More women, particularly in early- and mid-career stages, reported active intent to leave the institution (21.1% vs. 12.1%). Three clear themes emerged from qualitative survey data: 1) Career Advancement, 2) Work Culture, and 3) Work-life Integration. Conclusions Differences are reported in traditional metrics of academic career success between men and women in an academic anesthesiology department. The themes identified provide concrete targets for improvement in improving equity between women and men and retention in academic anesthesiology.Item type:Publication, An analysis of women’s authorship in five leading anesthesiology journals Open PDF(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-12-20) ;Verleysen, Sören ;Janssens, Sander ;Bauters, Annemie ;De Hert, StefanMoerman, AnneliesPurpose Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in gender equity. The present study explored the gender gap in five leading anesthesiology journals worldwide, covering the period from 1980 to 2020. Methods We included all articles published in Anaesthesia, the British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, and the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020, analyzing trends in women’s authorship. We explored its association with variables including study type, subspecialty, continent of the corresponding author, number of authors, and gender of coauthors. Results There was a significant increase in women’s authorship across all positions (first, second, and last) over the years (P < 0.001). Despite this progress, a substantial gender disparity remains evident. Women’s authorship positions were notably associated with the type of study, the subspecialty, and the continent of the corresponding author. There was a strong positive correlation (0.82) between the total number of authors and women’s first authorship position, whereas the correlation was negative (−0.54) for women’s last authorship position. Furthermore, women’s first and last authorship, as well as first and second authorship, were strongly associated, with odds ratios of 2.13 and 1.99, respectively. Conclusion The trajectory of women’s authorship in anesthesiology shows an upward trend, yet women continue to be underrepresented in the field. Particularly noteworthy is the finding that, when a woman is either the first or last author, there is a notable increase in the probability of having a woman as the second or first author, respectively. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering inclusivity and diversity within the discipline.Item type:Publication, The gender gap in academic anesthesiology and critical care medicine: a systematic review Open PDF(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-12-20) ;De Cassai, Alessandro ;Rubulotta, Francesca ;Zdravkovic, Marko ;Mustaj, SindiBerger-Estilita, JoanaAbstract Purpose Gender disparities in academia are a growing concern, impacting various disciplines, including health care. We aimed to investigate gender-based differences in academic performance, leadership roles, and academic distinction within anesthesiology and critical care medicine. Source We conducted electronic searches for relevant articles published in PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsychINFO, and ProQuest from database inception until 23 June 2024. Three researchers conducted blinded assessments using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We reported descriptive statistics for quantitative data from the included research articles. Principal findings Our initial screening identified 37,311 studies, 71 of which met the specified inclusion criteria and were therefore evaluated. Analysis of academic publishing trends revealed a gradual increase in the proportion of women as coauthors, first authors (in anesthesiology, the increase ranged from 7% to 17%, and in critical care medicine the increase was 4%), last authors, and corresponding authors. Despite these improvements, women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of top journals. Although an increase in the representation of women as abstract presenters at conferences was noted, gender disparities persist in senior authorship roles. Conclusion Gender disparities are evident in academic leadership positions within anesthesiology and critical care medicine, with few women holding editor-in-chief positions and underrepresentation of women on editorial boards. We observed similar gaps in departmental and scientific society leadership roles. The distribution of awards, prizes, and grants remains skewed, indicating persistent gender imbalances in academic distinction. While progress has been made in certain areas, substantial gaps persist in scholarly publishing, leadership, and academic distinction.Item type:Publication, Global evolution of female authorships in anesthesiology articles: an affiliation-based, longitudinal, scientometric analysis Open PDF(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-10-13) ;Miller, Clemens ;Rosenberger, Johanna ;Sablewski, Armin ;Nemeth, MarcusPaal, PeterBACKGROUND: Although a gender gap in anesthesiology articles has been reported in certain subsets of anesthesiology literature, a comprehensive analysis is still lacking. Our objective was to conduct a scientometric analysis of the evolution of gender equity among anesthesiology authors worldwide, including all available affiliations. We hypothesized that gender inequity has diminished over time, with relevant differences among countries. METHODS: The MEDLINE/PubMed 2024 Baseline Repository was queried for all articles whose authors were affiliated with a department of anesthesiology. Author positions were sequenced into first, co-authors, and senior authors. Gender was inferred using online classification tools (genderize.io and gender-api.com). Geolocation was identified through text mining of the first author's affiliation. The primary endpoint was the evolution of female authors from 1987 to 2023, calculated descriptively and by average annual growth rates. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of female authors in first or senior author position, the influence of senior authors' gender on first authors' gender, geographical differences, and future projections of parity (defined as 50% female authors). RESULTS: Among 374,301 anesthesiology articles and 7,574 journals, the proportion of female authors increased from 13.6% (1987) to 34.3% (2023) with an average annual growth of 0.57% (95%-confidence interval 0.38% - 0.77%). First authors were female in 30.0% and senior authors in 20.7%, with increases from 11.7% (1987) to 36.9% (2023), and from 11.0% (1987) to 25.9% (2023), respectively. Female authors were overall more likely to be first authors when the senior author was also female. In 2023, only Thailand and Portugal had a percentage of female authors over 50%. Tunisia achieved the highest average annual growth rate of female authors at 2.28% (95%-CI 1.51% - 3.06%). Based on the assumption that current trends continue unchanged, overall gender parity is estimated to be achieved by 2050, for first authors by 2043 and for senior authors by 2072. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in recent decades, women are still underrepresented as authors in academic anesthesiology, particularly in leading authorship positions. While relevant differences between countries exist, strategies addressing this gender gap at a country-specific level are needed to promote female authorship in academic anesthesiology.Item type:Publication, The workplace culture, mental health and wellbeing of early- and mid-career health academics: a cross-sectional analysis Open PDF(2024) ;Marck, Claudia H. ;Ayton, Darshini ;Steward, Trevor ;Koay, Hui-FernWiley, Joshua F.There are reports of poor working conditions for early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) in universities, however, empirical data using validated tools are scarce. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using validated tools to assess workplace satisfaction, exposure to workplace abuse, and mental health. Participants included employees of medical and health faculties of two of the largest Australian universities, surveyed between October 2020 and January 2021.Overall, 284 participants responded. Many reported job insecurity: half (50.7%) working on contracts with less than one remaining year. Workloads were considerable, with 89.5% of participants working overtime and 54.8% reporting burnout. Workplace abuse in the forms of bullying (46.6%), sexual harassment (25.3%), sexism (49.8%) and racism (22.5%) were commonly reported. Clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.0%), anxiety (21.7%) and suicidal ideation or self-harm (13.6%) were reported; with a higher prevalence among those working more overtime, and those exposed to workplace abuse. Priorities include providing a stable and safe workplace, increasing accountability and transparency in addressing workplace abuse, and supporting professional development.In summary, EMCAs in our study were commonly exposed to precarious employment conditions and workplace abuse. Our findings provide empirical evidence on where universities and funding bodies should direct resources and change organisational risk factors, to improve workplace culture.Item type:Publication, Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument Open PDF(2024) ;Rong, Lisa Q. ;Martinez, Andrew P. ;Rahouma, Mohamed ;Lopes, Alexandra J.Lee, Jerry Y.INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. METHODS: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.Item type:Publication, Trends in Gender of Authors of Patient Blood Management Publications Open PDF(2024) ;Forkin, Katherine T. ;Render, Caroline M. ;Staffa, Steven J.Goobie, Susan M.BACKGROUND: Diverse representation in the field of patient blood management (PBM) may help bring varying perspectives to improve patient care. We assessed trends in gender of first and last authorship of recent PBM publications to evaluate diversity within the field. METHODS: Publications from 10 high-impact anesthesiology and blood transfusion medicine journals between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed using 19 keywords to identify PBM-related articles. Each publication title was reviewed independently to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. A software program was used to identify the gender of each first and last author for the most common first names. Author gender that could not be identified through this process was determined by querying institutional websites and professional social networks (eg, ResearchGate). Any publication where the gender of the first and/or last author could not be reliably determined was excluded from the analysis. Trends over time were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: A total of 2467 publications met the inclusion criteria of the 2873 yielded by the initial search. Gender of the first and last author was identified for 2384 of these publications and included in the final analysis. Approximately 42.8% of publications featured a woman as the first author with the highest from the journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) (48.7%) and Transfusion (48.1%) and the lowest from the journals such as the British Journal of Anaesthesia (24.1%) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (24.4%). Approximately 32.0% of the publications featured a woman as the last author with the highest being Transfusion (36.9%) and Anaesthesia (31.8%) and the lowest being Anesthesia and Analgesia (18.3%) and Anesthesiology (18.6%). Approximately 57.6% of publications had either a woman as the first or last author while 16.3% of the publications had women as both the first and last authors. Women authors comprised 32.6% of the publications with a single author. Women as the first or last authors did not change significantly over the study period ( P = .115 and P = .119, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the percentage of PBM articles with a woman as the first or last author, a woman as the first and last author, or a woman as a single author from 2017 to 2021 ( P = .089, P = .055, and P = .226, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of women as the first and last authors in PBM publications from the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021 was <50%. Gender equity in PBM authorship was identified as an area for potential future improvement. International mentorship and sponsorship of women remain important in promoting gender equity in PBM authorship.