PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Clinical MedicineGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Canada

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America Open PDF 
    (2021)
    O'Neill, S.B.
    ;
    Maddu, K.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Yeo, S.
    ;
    Khurshid, K.
    Purpose: In the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America. Materials and Methods: A list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases. Results: Four hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Gender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.
  • 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.