PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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, Geoffrey
    ;
    Argo, Jonathan
    PURPOSE: 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, Lesley
    ;
    Kemp, Harriet
    As 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,
    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, Sindi
    ;
    Berger-Estilita, Joana
    Abstract 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.