PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.AnesthesiologySubject: search.filters.subject.Adult

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diferencias de género en Anestesiología. ¿En qué punto nos encontramos en España? Resultados de una encuesta nacional Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2020-08)
    Aliaño, M.
    ;
    Franco, G.
    ;
    Gilsanz, F.
    Resumen Objetivo En la última década se han publicado numerosos trabajos en los que se pone de manifiesto la persistencia de diferencias de género en medicina. La finalidad de este estudio fue investigar si este problema existe en la especialidad de Anestesiología en España. Métodos El estudio se llevó a cabo mediante una encuesta anónima que se distribuyó entre los especialistas en Anestesiología. El cuestionario estaba formado por 39 preguntas diseñadas para investigar la situación profesional, laboral y personal, así como las percepciones individuales en relación con la discriminación de género en el trabajo. Resultados Se incluyeron 1.619 encuestas, lo que representa el 17,6% del total de anestesiólogos de España; 654 participantes fueron hombres (40,4%) y 965 mujeres (59,6%). Las mayores diferencias fueron observadas en las siguientes áreas: el 70,0% de participantes informaron de que su jefe de servicio es un hombre. En relación con los puestos de liderazgo, el 25,2% de las mujeres que respondieron a la encuesta habían desempeñado algún puesto de confianza frente al 46,1% de los hombres (p < 0,001). En cuanto a la posición académica, el 10,3% de los hombres respondieron ser profesores de universidad en contraste con el 4,8% de mujeres (p < 0,001). El 46,0% de las mujeres que participaron en la encuesta piensan que existe discriminación de género en su profesión, mientras que solo el 12,6% de los hombres lo reconocieron. Un tercio de las mujeres (36,6%) consideran su condición de género una barrera para promocionar y tienen miedo de perder su trabajo por quedarse embarazadas. Además, tanto hombres como mujeres han presenciado un trato diferente por parte de pacientes y personal sanitario hacia sus compañeras anestesiólogas. Conclusión Los resultados de esta encuesta demuestran que existe una brecha de género en Anestesiología en España. En concreto, las mujeres están poco representadas en puestos académicos y de liderazgo, y un porcentaje considerable de encuestados perciben diferencias de género en el trabajo. Este estudio puede servir para monitorizar futuros cambios en nuestro país y como ejemplo para investigaciones en otros países vecinos. Abstract Objective Publications of diverse medical specialties confirm that gender differences still exist in the medical field. This particular study aims to investigate whether this problem exists in the specialty of Anaesthesiology in Spain. Methods An anonymous survey was distributed among anaesthesiologists in Spain. It had 39 questions and was designed to investigate professional position, work conditions, personal situation, and individual perceptions. The goal was to target the majority of anaesthesiologists working in Spain. Results Completed surveys were received from 1,619 respondents which represents 17.6% of the total number of anaesthesiologists in Spain; 654 respondents were male (40.4%) and 965 were female (59.6%). The greater differences were found in the following areas: 70.0% of the respondents advised that their head of department is male. When asked about management and leadership positions, 25.2% of female respondents had ever had any management role in contrast to 46.1% of men (p < 0.001). Regarding academic positions, 10.3% of male respondents are university professors in contrast to only 4.8% of women (p < 0.001). 46.0% of the women surveyed believe that gender discrimination exists in the workplace whereas only 12.6% of men reported the same. A third of women (36.6%) consider their gender a barrier to promotion and fear losing their job due to pregnancy. Furthermore, both genders have witnessed patients and colleagues treating staff differently according to gender. Conclusion The results of the survey show the existence of a gender gap among Spanish anaesthesiologists. Of particular note, women are under-represented in academic and leadership positions. Additionally, a considerable percentage of respondents perceive gender-based discrimination to be active in their workplaces. This study could serve as a template for future research in other neighbouring countries and as a means to monitor any changes in coming years.
  • 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,
    Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ha, Giang L.
    ;
    Lehrer, Eric J.
    ;
    Wang, Ming
    ;
    Holliday, Emma
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.