PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2025Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Reviews

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Interventions to enhance gender equity in academic medicine: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (BMJ, 2025-10)
    Burke, Elaine
    ;
    Darker, Catherine
    ;
    Godson Treacy, Isabelle Molly
    ;
    Kavanagh, Columb
    ;
    Mockler, David
    Objectives We aimed to describe the current evidence for interventions to enhance gender equality and equity in academic medicine. We also wished to characterise the nature of the interventions, who delivered them and whether they seek to ‘fix the women’, or target issues at organisational and systemic levels. Design We extracted data using a form developed for the study and applied the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Morahan frameworks to describe and characterise interventions. We used the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QUADS) tool to critically appraise included studies. Data sources We searched five electronic databases in November 2022 and August 2023 (Medline (OVID), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and undertook handsearching. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included qualitative or quantitative original studies published in full that described any new intervention designed to enhance gender equality/equity in recruitment, retention or promotion in academic medicine. The settings were Schools/Faculties of Medicine in Higher Education Institutions. The population of interest was female clinical academics/physician scientists. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted by one researcher using an Excel form specifically designed for this study with a second researcher applying the form to a subset of seven studies; significant agreement was achieved. Four researchers applied the TIDieR framework to the included studies. Due to the small number of studies and significant heterogeneity, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. Results The search of electronic databases yielded 1747 studies. A further 62 were identified through handsearching. Following removal of duplicates, 764 articles were screened for eligibility, and 199 full-text articles were screened. Of these, 27 met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly reported interventions were career development or leadership skills programmes, followed by mentorship and multifaceted interventions. Most papers reported positive findings, but many relied on subjective measures. Robustly designed studies often reported mixed findings. The majority of interventions aimed to ‘fix the women’, with few addressing inequality at organisational level. Conclusions Acknowledging the possibility of publication delay, we found that despite strong evidence of the negative effects of the pandemic on women’s research productivity, there were no new interventions designed to mitigate this. Many existing interventions create ‘institutional housekeeping’ by relying on women for their delivery. This can result in failure, especially during a crisis like COVID. Most studies were low to moderate quality. More robust research and a more holistic approach are needed, moving away from ‘fixing the women’ to address the organisational and systemic structures which underpin inequality. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023391086.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Inequity in Institutional Leadership Roles in US Academic Medical Centers Open PDF 
    (American Medical Association (AMA), 2025-04-04)
    Levy, Morgan S.
    ;
    Hunt, Kelby N.
    ;
    Lindsay, Kara A.
    ;
    Mohan, Vikasni
    ;
    Mercadel, Alyssa
    Importance Academic medical centers have focused their efforts on promoting gender equity in recent years, but the positive outcomes associated with those efforts remain to be seen in recruiting and retaining diverse institutional leadership. Objective To evaluate the current state of gender inequity in institutional leadership roles, such as deans, department chairs, and residency and fellowship program directors, at US academic medical centers. Evidence Review A search for articles published from January 1, 2019, to August 5, 2022, on gender inequity in institutional leadership roles at academic medical centers was performed using the PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC databases. Studies were screened for inclusion by sets of 2 independent reviewers (with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer) and evaluated for risk of bias. The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards were followed for conducting the review, and the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was followed for reporting results. Findings A total of 8120 articles were retrieved, of which 6368 were screened by title and abstract, 6166 were excluded, and 202 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 94 studies reported on institutional leadership roles, including deans (5 studies [5.3%]), department chairs (39 studies [41.5%]), division chiefs (25 studies [26.6%]), and program directors (67 studies [71.3%]), with some overlap. A total of 678 participants were deans (564 men [80.5%] and 132 women [19.5%]), 8518 were department chairs (7160 men [84.1%] and 1358 women [15.9%]), 3734 division chiefs (2997 men [80.3%] and 737 women [19.7%]), and 9548 program directors (7455 men [78.1%] and 2093 women [21.9%]). Even in specialties with 50% or more female faculty, none had equal representation of women as department chairs and division chiefs. Gender inequities were particularly pronounced in surgical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic scoping review suggests that even though emphasis has been placed on addressing gender inequities in academic medicine, considerable disparities remain at the leadership level. While certain positions and specialties have been observed to have more female leaders, niches of academic medicine almost or completely exclude women from their leadership ranks. Importantly, even female-dominated specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology, have substantial inequity in leadership roles. It is past time for organizational and systems-level changes to ensure equitable gender representation in academic leadership.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Equity in Access to Arthroplasty from a Gender Perspective: A Narrative Review Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-06-04)
    Patel, Neha
    ;
    McDougall, Catherine
    ;
    Arif, Azeta
    Objective Despite growing gender diversity in medical education, orthopaedic surgery—particularly arthroplasty—remains one of the most male-dominated subspecialties. This review critically evaluates the barriers limiting female surgeons' access to arthroplasty, including disparities in training, mentorship, professional advancement, and leadership roles. In addition it explores the implications of gender disparities on workforce diversity, patient care outcomes, and surgical innovation while identifying strategies to enhance gender equity in the field. Introduction Women remain significantly underrepresented in arthroplasty, comprising a lower percentage of trainees, faculty, and senior consultants as compared to other surgical specialties. Systemic barriers such as implicit bias, limited mentorship, work-life balance challenges, and inequitable leadership opportunities contribute to this underrepresentation. These disparities influence career trajectories, limiting diversity in surgical perspectives and innovation. Addressing these issues is critical to achieving an equitable and inclusive workforce. Methodology A structured narrative review was conducted using peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and orthopaedic society publications. The Data were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and institutional databases, focusing on gender representation in orthopaedic surgery, mentorship initiatives, workforce statistics, and leadership opportunities in arthroplasty. Comparative analysis was performed across subspecialties and institutions, and recommendations from diversity and inclusion initiatives were evaluated to highlight successful interventions. Conclusion Achieving gender equity in arthroplasty requires systemic changes, including structured mentorship programs, leadership development workshops, and institutional commitments to diversity. Addressing implicit biases, promoting flexible training pathways, and fostering sponsorship programs for female surgeons are essential. A diverse workforce in arthroplasty will not only promote professional equity but also improve patient care and surgical innovation.