PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Critical CareSubject: search.filters.subject.Diversity

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in academic anesthesiology and critical care medicine: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-12-20)
    De Cassai, Alessandro
    ;
    Rubulotta, Francesca
    ;
    Zdravkovic, Marko
    ;
    Mustaj, Sindi
    ;
    Berger-Estilita, Joana
    Abstract Purpose Gender disparities in academia are a growing concern, impacting various disciplines, including health care. We aimed to investigate gender-based differences in academic performance, leadership roles, and academic distinction within anesthesiology and critical care medicine. Source We conducted electronic searches for relevant articles published in PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsychINFO, and ProQuest from database inception until 23 June 2024. Three researchers conducted blinded assessments using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We reported descriptive statistics for quantitative data from the included research articles. Principal findings Our initial screening identified 37,311 studies, 71 of which met the specified inclusion criteria and were therefore evaluated. Analysis of academic publishing trends revealed a gradual increase in the proportion of women as coauthors, first authors (in anesthesiology, the increase ranged from 7% to 17%, and in critical care medicine the increase was 4%), last authors, and corresponding authors. Despite these improvements, women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of top journals. Although an increase in the representation of women as abstract presenters at conferences was noted, gender disparities persist in senior authorship roles. Conclusion Gender disparities are evident in academic leadership positions within anesthesiology and critical care medicine, with few women holding editor-in-chief positions and underrepresentation of women on editorial boards. We observed similar gaps in departmental and scientific society leadership roles. The distribution of awards, prizes, and grants remains skewed, indicating persistent gender imbalances in academic distinction. While progress has been made in certain areas, substantial gaps persist in scholarly publishing, leadership, and academic distinction.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Authorship in Pediatric Critical Care Randomized Control Trials∗ Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Xu, G.M.
    ;
    Zavalkoff, S.
    ;
    De Wildt, S.N.
    ;
    Duffett, M.
    Objectives: To examine the gender distribution of authorship of pediatric critical care randomized control trials. Data Sources: The 415 randomized control trials in pediatric critical care published before 2019. Study Selection: We included all randomized control trials enrolling children in a PICU. We used PICUtrials.net, which uses comprehensive search strategies of multiple databases, to identify published randomized control trials. Data Extraction: We manually extracted the name and profession of each listed author from each publication and classified each author as male or female based on their name. Results: We included 2,146 authors and were able to classify 1,888 (88%) as men or women. Overall, 38% of authors were women, this varied with the authorship position: 37% of first, 38% of middle, and 25% of last authors were women (p < 0.001). The three most common professions were physician (63%), nonclinician (11%), and nurse (6%) - of which 30%, 45%, and 97%, respectively, were women. The percentage of female authorship overall has increased from 28% in 1985-1989 to 39% in 2015-2018 (p for trend = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the characteristics of randomized control trials published with a female first or last author versus those with both male first and last authors with respect to the median number of children randomized (60 vs. 50; p = 0.41), multicentred trials (17% vs. 24%; p = 0.12), trials at low risk of bias (50% vs. 66%; p = 0.26), reporting any funding (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.66), or median number of citations per year (1.5 vs. 2.4; p = 0.09). Conclusions: Although increasing over time, the percentage of researchers publishing pediatric critical care randomized control trials who are women still lags behind the percentage clinicians who are women. Trials that female researchers publish are similar in characteristics and impact as male researchers. Further work should identify barriers to gender diversity and potential solutions in pediatric critical care research. © 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.