PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.CardiologySubject: search.filters.subject.Women

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    A remote mentorship model for empowering students to undertake electrocardiology research: Effects on gender equity Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Nam, RHK
    ;
    Tse, G
    ;
    Liu, T
    ;
    Jeevaratnam, K
    ;
    Lee, S
    Over the past years, there has been increasing awareness on female representation in cardiology, in particular senior academic ranks. Given the gender disparity in cardiology, female talents in cardiovascular academic medicine are significantly under-represented. In addition, whilst women have a slightly higher frequency of earning first authorships, it has been reported that women are 50% less likely to hold a senior authorship position. The drop in female representation in senior ranks of academic medicine may be contributed by a lack of female talent engagement, particularly during their early-career advancement, in high-impact journals and leadership roles. We present a remote, accessible-distributed research team model to help raise the female representation and tackle the challenges faced by female academics in the field of cardiovascular medicine. The group celebrates accessibility through open communication and collaboration, where mentees can seek research advice and ideas virtually from senior members and principal investigators. The decentralized system allows easy access for research guidance and inspirationand break down barriers in the lack of mentorship for early-career female talents. Students are empowered to lead their projects, and be involved in all phases- from the generation of study ideas to publication. The early development of holistic independent research skills equips students to become principal investigators and leaders in the future. The distributive element of the group is demonstrated through the decentralized research approach employed. Authorship is allocated based on intellectual contribution rather than on the acquisition of funding or seniority level.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Cardiology-Related COVID-19 Publications Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Vasti, Elena C.
    ;
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Ngo, Summer
    ;
    Sarraju, Ashish
    ;
    Harrington, Robert A.
    INTRODUCTION: Female authors are underrepresented in cardiology journals, although prior work suggested improvement in reducing disparities over time. Early in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship continued to lag that of their male counterparts despite a surge in publications. The cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on authorship gender disparities remains unclear. We aimed to characterize gender disparities in COVID-19-related cardiology publications across the duration of the ongoing pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19-related research articles published in the top 20 impact factor cardiology journals between March and June 2021. Gender representation data were extracted for any author, first authors, and senior authors. RESULTS: We found that 841 articles were related to COVID-19, with a total of 5586 authors and an average of 42 articles per journal. Less than a third (29.9%) of the total authors from publications were women. Women represented a smaller proportion of first authors (21.3%) and senior authors (16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Female authorship has continued to lag male authorship for the duration of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic may have impeded progress in reducing gender disparities in academic cardiology publications. The low proportions of first and senior female authors may reflect the impact of the pandemic on women in cardiology in leadership domains.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there a gender gap in Portuguese cardiology research? A review of data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Timóteo, A.T.
    A gender gap is apparent in several professional areas, including in medicine and particularly in the cardiovascular field. We present a brief review of the topic and we analyze data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology regarding female authorship. © 2020
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Publication Authorship During COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Cardiology Journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    DeFilippis, Ersilia M.
    ;
    Sinnenberg, Lauren
    ;
    Mahmud, Nadim
    ;
    Wood, Malissa J.
    ;
    Hayes, Sharonne N.
    Background The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high-impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods and Results All manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high-impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, JAMA Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co-first, senior, and co-senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID-19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P<0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts (P=0.04). Conclusions Representation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID-19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender-disparate impacts of COVID-19 on academic careers is critical.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.