PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2025Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Australia

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Characterization of academic output (h‐index) by Australian urologists according to gender and rurality Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2025-01-21)
    Paynter, Jessica A.
    ;
    Wang, Eugene
    ;
    Wynn, Jessica
    ;
    Qin, Kirby R.
    ;
    Brennan, Janelle
    Background As the number of practicing female urologists in Australia continues to increase alongside the academic development of the specialty, it is essential to examine how gender and rurality impact academic performance and expectations. This study aims to assess differences in h‐index related to both gender and rurality among Australian urologists. Methods We identified all active, practicing Australian urologists through the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) membership database. Data on each practitioner's gender, subspecialty, academic rank or affiliation, seniority, and h‐index from the Web of Science were collected. Differences in h‐index by gender and rurality were analyzed using univariable and multivariable regression. Results A total of 463 Australian urologists were included, of whom 69 (14.9%) were female and 73 (15.8%) practiced in rural areas. Female urologists were less likely to hold an academic position of Associate Professor or Professor compared to their male counterparts (5.8% vs. 11.0%, P = 0.28). The average h‐index for female urologists was 39% lower than male urologists (univariable P < 0.001). Adjusting for demographic variables, h‐index remained 32% lower (multivariable P = 0.003). The average h‐index of rural urologists was 51% lower than their metropolitan colleagues (univariable P < 0.001); and after adjusting for demographics, the average h‐index was 30% lower (multivariable P = 0.006). Conclusion Female and rural urologists in Australia produce significantly less research than their male and metropolitan counterparts. To address this disparity, it is crucial to implement enhanced institutional academic support, targeted mentorship, and greater recognition of the challenges posed by caregiving responsibilities and rural practice.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender‐Based Outcomes in Grants, Prizes and Fellowship Success Rates in Clinical Radiology: A 14‐Year Review of Outcomes in Australia and New Zealand Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2025-09-24)
    Liu, Jack Edward
    ;
    Milner, Lisa
    ;
    Shaygi, Behnam
    ;
    Stewart, Michael
    ;
    Yazdabadi, Anousha
    ABSTRACT Introduction While gender disparities in the radiology workforce are well‐documented, there has been no analysis of outcomes for competitive awards in Australia and New Zealand. As formal recognition is critical for career progression, this study aimed to investigate gender‐based differences in application and success rates for grants, prizes and educational fellowships within the Australasian context. Methods We retrospectively reviewed applications for Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists' (RANZCR) Faculty of Clinical Radiology grants, prizes and educational fellowships from 2011 to 2024. Application and success rates were stratified by gender and compared to College membership demographics. Significance was assessed using Fisher's exact test. Results Across 333 total applications, 227 (68.2%) were from males and 106 (31.8%) from females, closely reflecting College membership gender ratios (69.2% male vs. 30.8% female). No significant gender disparity was found in the success rates for grants (40.3% for males vs. 35.0% for females, p  = 0.58), prizes (8.8% vs. 11.1%, p  = 0.08) or educational fellowships (36.7% vs. 32.1%, p  = 0.32). Application rates for each award type also broadly reflected the gender composition of the College membership. Conclusion This study is the first to examine gender differences in clinical radiology grant, prize and educational fellowship outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. We found no significant disparities in success rates, and application rates generally mirrored College membership, suggesting the award process itself is equitable. However, the continued underrepresentation of women in radiology underscores the need to examine broader structural and sociocultural factors that may impact engagement with competitive academic opportunities.