PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Clinical MedicineViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Inequity in Institutional Leadership Roles in US Academic Medical Centers Open PDF 
    (American Medical Association (AMA), 2025-04-04)
    Levy, Morgan S.
    ;
    Hunt, Kelby N.
    ;
    Lindsay, Kara A.
    ;
    Mohan, Vikasni
    ;
    Mercadel, Alyssa
    Importance Academic medical centers have focused their efforts on promoting gender equity in recent years, but the positive outcomes associated with those efforts remain to be seen in recruiting and retaining diverse institutional leadership. Objective To evaluate the current state of gender inequity in institutional leadership roles, such as deans, department chairs, and residency and fellowship program directors, at US academic medical centers. Evidence Review A search for articles published from January 1, 2019, to August 5, 2022, on gender inequity in institutional leadership roles at academic medical centers was performed using the PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC databases. Studies were screened for inclusion by sets of 2 independent reviewers (with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer) and evaluated for risk of bias. The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards were followed for conducting the review, and the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was followed for reporting results. Findings A total of 8120 articles were retrieved, of which 6368 were screened by title and abstract, 6166 were excluded, and 202 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 94 studies reported on institutional leadership roles, including deans (5 studies [5.3%]), department chairs (39 studies [41.5%]), division chiefs (25 studies [26.6%]), and program directors (67 studies [71.3%]), with some overlap. A total of 678 participants were deans (564 men [80.5%] and 132 women [19.5%]), 8518 were department chairs (7160 men [84.1%] and 1358 women [15.9%]), 3734 division chiefs (2997 men [80.3%] and 737 women [19.7%]), and 9548 program directors (7455 men [78.1%] and 2093 women [21.9%]). Even in specialties with 50% or more female faculty, none had equal representation of women as department chairs and division chiefs. Gender inequities were particularly pronounced in surgical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic scoping review suggests that even though emphasis has been placed on addressing gender inequities in academic medicine, considerable disparities remain at the leadership level. While certain positions and specialties have been observed to have more female leaders, niches of academic medicine almost or completely exclude women from their leadership ranks. Importantly, even female-dominated specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology, have substantial inequity in leadership roles. It is past time for organizational and systems-level changes to ensure equitable gender representation in academic leadership.
  • 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,
    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,
    Breaking the Gender Gap: A Two-part Observational Study of the Gender Disparity Among Korean Academic Emergency Physicians Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Lee, Mi Jin
    ;
    Kim, ChangHo
    OBJECTIVES: Despite greater access to training positions and the presence of more women in emergency medicine, it has remained a men-dominated field. This study aims to identify the key issues causing the gender gap in Korea and establish measures to overcome them. METHODS: Using the annual statistical reports of the National Emergency Medical Center and data published on the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine website, cases that listed the current status and positions of members in its organization and its committees were analyzed. Secondary analysis was conducted using data from the 2015 Korean Society of Emergency Survey that included physicians' demographics, academic ranking, years of experience, clinical work hours, training and board certification, core faculty status, position, and salaries. RESULTS: As of September 2019, women account for only 12.7% of the total number of emergency physicians (EP) in Korea; of 119 chair/ vice-chair academic positions, women represented only 9.2%. Women EP were more often assistant professors and fellowship-trained, with fewer in core faculty. However, they worked the same numbers of clinical hours as their men counterparts. The median annual salary of women EP was less than that of men EP after adjusting for academic hospital rank, clinical hours, and core faculty status. CONCLUSIONS: A gender gap still exists among Korean EP, and women earn less than men regardless of their rank, clinical hours, or training. Future studies should evaluate more data and develop system-wide practices to eliminate gender disparities.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Sugimoto, Cassidy R
    ;
    Ahn, Yong-Yeol
    ;
    Smith, Elise
    ;
    Macaluso, Benoit
    ;
    Larivière, Vincent
    Background Clinical and preclinical studies have shown that there are sex-based differences at the genetic, cellular, biochemical, and physiological levels. Despite this, numerous studies have shown poor levels of inclusion of female populations into medical research. These disparities in sex inclusion in research are further complicated by the absence of sufficient reporting and analysis by sex of study populations. Disparities in the inclusion of the sexes in medical research substantially reduce the utility of the results of such research for the entire population. The absence of sex-related reporting are problematical for the translation of research from the preclinical to clinical and applied health settings. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the extent of sex-related reporting and where disparities are more prevalent. In addition, while several studies have shown the dearth of female researchers in science, few have evaluated whether a scarcity of women in science might be related to disparities in sex inclusion and reporting. We aimed to do a cross-disciplinary analysis of the degree of sex-related reporting across the health sciences—from biomedical, to clinical, and public health research—and the role of author gender in sex-related reporting. Methods This bibliometric analysis analysed sex-related reporting in medical research examining more than 11·5 million papers indexed in Web of Science and PubMed between 1980 and 2016 and using sex-related Medical Subject Headings as a proxy for sex reporting. For papers that were published between 2008 and 2016 and could be matched with PubMed, we assigned a gender to first and last authors on the basis of their names, according to our gender assignment algorithm. We removed papers for which we could not determine the gender of either the first or last author. We grouped papers into three disciplinary categories (biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health). We used descriptive statistics and regression analyses (controlling for the number of authors and representation of women in specific diseases, countries, continents, year, and specialty areas) to study associations between the gender of the authors and sex-related reporting. Findings Between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, sex-related reporting increased from 59% to 67% in clinical medicine and from 36% to 69% in public health research. But for biomedical research, sex remains largely under-reported (31% in 2016). Papers with female first and last authors had an increased probability of reporting sex, with an odds ratio of 1·26 (95% CI 1·24 to 1·27), and sex-related reporting was associated with publications in journals with low journal impact factors. For publications in 2016, sex-related reporting of both male and female is associated with a reduction of −0·51 (95% CI −0·54 to −0·47) in journal impact factors. Interpretation Gender disparities in the scientific workforce and scarcity of policies on sex-related reporting at the journal and institutional level could inhibit effective research translation from bench to clinical studies. Diversification in the scientific workforce and in the research populations—from cell lines, to rodents, to humans—is essential to produce the most rigorous and effective medical research. Funding Canada Research Chairs.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Brown, Meghan A.
    ;
    Erdman, Mary Kate
    ;
    Munger, Alana M.
    ;
    Miller, Anna N.
    BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.