PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Clinical Medicine

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 20
  • 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,
    Twenty years of silence: shining a light on gender disparities in academic medical leadership in India Open PDF 
    (BMJ, 2026-03-03)
    Gulati, Kamal
    ;
    Davies, Julie
    ;
    Kumar, Sachin
    INTRODUCTION: Under-representation of women in senior academic medicine positions fails to mirror the over-representation of women entering medical schools. More women medical professors are needed as leadership role models to facilitate gender equity in the curriculum, research and medical services for national well-being. We seek to understand this gender gap in India by highlighting gender disparities in a premier Indian medical school and by advocating multi-level interventions in academic medicine. METHODS: We statistically analysed documentary data of all faculty ranks from 2004-2005 to 2022-2023 at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi to illustrate women faculty's representation in different disciplines (clinical, paraclinical and surgical) and leadership positions. First, we used trend analysis to project the time to gender parity across ranks. We then adopted cross-tabulation analysis to calculate the relative odds of women faculty holding academic ranks and leadership positions compared with their male counterparts. RESULTS: The findings revealed significant gender inequities across all faculty ranks. The total percentage of women faculty in 2004-2005 was 24.2% compared with 27.5% in 2022-2023. Leadership positions also showed significant gender disparity (χ2=18.20, p<0.0001115) as women occupied 16% of senior roles in the last two decades. The overall trend indicated a decline in the proportion of women in senior academic medical leadership roles over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights persistent gender disparities over 20 years for women faculty's career trajectories in academic medicine. We propose six multilevel recommendations for gender parity in academic medical leadership in India.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2025-11-19)
    Sebo, Paul
    ;
    Elango, B.
    Background Gender disparities in scientific authorship are well documented, yet little is known about gender representation among authors of retracted publications. Methods We analyzed 878 retracted publications from 131 high-impact medical journals across nine clinical disciplines (anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology). Gender was inferred using Gender API for all, first, and last authors. Two analytic samples were constructed based on prediction confidence thresholds (≥60% and ≥70%). We examined gender distribution across authorship positions, number of retractions per author, and disciplinary representation. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests were used to assess group differences. Gender proportions were compared with publication benchmarks from 2008–2017, restricting retraction data to the same period for comparability. Results Among 4,136 authors, 3,909 had full first names, and gender could be assigned to 3,865 (98.9%). In the sample with prediction confidence ≥60% (n = 3,743), 863 (23.1%) were identified as women. They accounted for 16.5% (123/747) of first and 12.7% (87/687) of last authors. They had significantly fewer retractions per author and were less likely to have >5 retractions (all authors: 3 women [8.1%] vs 34 men [91.9%], p < 0.001). Across most disciplines, their representation was below publication benchmarks. Dermatology (retractions = 80.0%, publications = 48.9–51.8%) and radiology (retractions = 40.0%, publications = 31.0-36.8%) were exceptions among first authors, while pediatrics (retractions = 50.0%, publications = 37.0%−42.6%) was an exception among last authors, though all based on small numbers. Conclusions Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions. Further research is needed to clarify underlying mechanisms.
  • 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,
    Gender disparities in the author bylines of articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Matchanova, Anastasia
    ;
    Avci, Gunes
    ;
    Babicz, Michelle A.
    ;
    Thompson, Jennifer L.
    ;
    Johnson, Briana
    Objective: Women are becoming more prevalent in clinical neuropsychology, but gender bias and disparities persist across multiple professional domains. This study examined potential gender disparities in historical authorship trends across commonly read journals in clinical neuropsychology. Method: Analyses were conducted on 10,531 articles published in six clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019. Each author was coded as either a man or a woman using the OpenGenderTracking Project database. Results: On average, women comprised 43.3% (±30.6) of the authors listed in clinical neuropsychology article bylines and were lead and/or corresponding author on 50.3% of these papers. Findings varied by journal, with Child Neuropsychology having the best representation of women across several study metrics. Women comprised an increasing proportion of authors over time and the gender gap in clinical neuropsychology is smaller than was recently reported for the broader field of psychology; nevertheless, the recent rates of women as authors lag behind the prevalence of women in clinical neuropsychology. Encouragingly, gender was not associated with the number of times an article was cited. Articles that included women in leadership roles had significantly more authors overall and specifically more women authors. Conclusions: Women are under-represented as authors in clinical neuropsychology journals, but they are becoming more common and their papers are cited just as frequently as men. Efforts to increase women as research mentors and sponsors may help to further close the publishing gender gap in clinical neuropsychology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Madsen, Emil Bargmann
    ;
    Nielsen, Mathias Wullum
    ;
    Bjørnholm, Josefine
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Andersen, Jens Peter
    Publications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The scientometrics of successful women in science
    (2016)
    Madlock-Brown, C.
    ;
    Eichmann, D.
    This paper examines the effects of gender differences in collaboration on research outcomes. We analyzed network characteristics of seventeen medical research institutions that are Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) to determine if network connectivity characteristics have the potential to help mitigate the performance gap between the sexes. We determined betweenness centrality to identify well-connected researchers. Then we used clustering coefficient to determine how tightly connected their collaborators were with each other. We correlate these scores with productivity (number of total publications for each author), and h-index (the number of papers h for which an author has h citations). We also provide data on how network characteristics vary by role for each gender studied. Our results indicate that being well connected is more highly correlated with success for women than men for most of the institutions we studied. We believe these results can be leveraged to improve success rates for women in the future. © 2016 IEEE.
  • 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.