PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Clinical MedicineSubject: search.filters.subject.Medical Faculty

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Interventional Pain Medicine: Representation, Leadership, and Compensation Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2026-05-06)
    Catalanotto, Marissa
    ;
    Kim, Serena Jiyeon
    ;
    Javed, Saba
    INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing representation of women in medicine overall, significant gender disparities persist in procedural specialties such as interventional pain medicine. Women remain underrepresented as speakers at national pain conferences and in leadership roles. Additionally, a pay gap between female and male pain physicians remains. This study aims to objectively demonstrate the above-mentioned inequities. METHODS: National conference faculty were analyzed across five major pain societies (ASRA, NANS, AAPM, ASIPP, ASPN) from 2020 to 2024 annual conference agendas. Gender was assigned based on publicly available information. Leadership roles were assessed by identifying the gender of pain fellowship program directors and pain medicine department chairs. Lastly, using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Salary Report (2021-2024), we examined the compensation gap and difference in salary growth rates between genders. RESULTS: Across national conferences, only 25% of speakers were female, with ASRA demonstrating the most consistent female representation. Of the pain medicine fellowship programs studied, there were 36 (32.7%) female program directors and 25 (23.8%) female department chairs. Programs led by female program directors had significantly higher proportions of female faculty (OR = 1.97, CI [1.45, 2.68], p < 0.0001). Salary data revealed that at every academic rank, women in pain medicine faculty earned less than their male counterparts. Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference between the salary growth rates of male and female associate professors between 2021 and 2024 (F = 12.25, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Substantial gender disparities remain in visibility at national conferences, academic leadership, and compensation in pain medicine. Female-led academic programs demonstrate more gender-diverse faculties, highlighting the importance of representation in leadership. Focused efforts are needed to promote mentorship, equitable hiring, and transparency in pay and speaking opportunities to foster a more inclusive field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: A longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Lett, Elle
    ;
    Orji, Whitney U.
    ;
    Sebro, Ronnie
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in racial, ethnic, and sex representation at US medical schools across 16 specialties: internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, family practice, pathology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and dermatology. Using a novel, Census-derived statistical measure of diversity, the S-score, we quantified the degree of underrepresentation for racial minority groups and female faculty by rank for assistant, associate, and full professors from 1990-2016. METHODS: This longitudinal study of faculty diversity uses data obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster from US allopathic medical schools. The proportion of professors of racial minority groups and female faculty by rank was compared to the US population based on data from the US Census Bureau. The Roster includes data on 52,939 clinical medical faculty in 1990, and 129,545 in 2016, at the assistant professor level or higher. The primary measure used in this study was the S-score, a measure of representation based on the probability of the observed frequency of faculty from a racial/ethnic group and sex, given the racial and ethnic distribution of the US. Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals for S-score with time were used to measure trends. RESULTS: Blacks and Hispanics showed statistically significant trends (p<0.05) towards increasing underrepresentation in most specialties and are more underrepresented in 2016 than in 1990 across all ranks and specialties analyzed, except for Black females in obstetrics & gynecology. White females were also underrepresented in many specialties and in a subset of specialties trended toward greater underrepresentation. CONCLUSIONS: Current efforts to improve faculty diversity are inadequate in generating an academic physician workforce that represents the diversity of the US. More aggressive measures for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion are necessary to reach equity in academia and healthcare.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lerchenmueller, Marc J.
    ;
    Sorenson, Olav
    ;
    Jena, Anupam B.
    OBJECTIVES: Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES: Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as "novel" or "excellent." For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS: Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.