PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Allergy & Rhinology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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-Fern
    ;
    Wiley, 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,
    Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hsiehchen, D.
    ;
    Hsieh, A.
    ;
    Espinoza, M.
    IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and authorship trends in rhinology, allergy, and skull-base literature from 2008 to 2018 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Halderman, A.A.
    ;
    Rao, A.
    ;
    Desai-Markowski, S.
    ;
    Yang, A.
    ;
    Luong, A.U.
    Background: A recent analysis suggested potential narrowing of the gender gap in research productivity in the field of rhinology. This analysis did not, however, provide insight into how the genders are represented in the rhinologic literature. This study aimed to evaluate 11 years of literature to evaluate for gender differences in authorship position, collaborations, category and content of research, citations, and funding to gain perspective on how gender and authorship has changed over time. Methods: Authorship data for all articles on rhinologic subject matter published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2018 in four otolaryngology journals was collected. The gender of authors was determined by protocol. Category and content of research and funding status/source were additionally obtained. Results: Data were collected from 2666 articles. Gender of 14,510 authors was determined. Female authors accounted for 23% of the overall authors and male authors accounted for 77%. Female first authorship increased significantly over time, but there was no change in female senior authorship. The percentage of female authors steadily increased over time, whereas male authorship decreased slightly. Mixed gender teams were shown to be increasing in frequency. Women published more than expected in basic science and allergy and less than expected in skull base. On funded studies, women were significantly underrepresented as senior authors. Conclusion: This study represents the first assessment of gender differences in the rhinology literature. Areas where female representation can improve include senior authorship, increased involvement in skull base publications, and increased funding. © 2021 ARS-AAOA, LLC
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias in rhinology research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    Background Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. Methods All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. Results There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM50) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM50 (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. Conclusion Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.