PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Family Medicine

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty Open PDF 
    (American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), 2026-01)
    Qazi, Shurjeel Uddin
    ;
    Cawse-Lucas, Jeanne
    ;
    Hussain, Mehwish
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the current trends of gender disparity in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns for research within Family Medicine. METHODS: Funding data was collected from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) system for fiscal years 2017-2020, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was retrieved from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. RESULTS: We analyzed 730 grants in our analysis. Amongst them, 398 (54.5%) were awarded to women PIs and 332 (45.5%) to men PIs. The mean NIH grant amount awarded to men PIs (518,862±490,793.32) was significantly higher than the mean grant amount awarded to women PIs (450,195±428,405.62) (p = 0.04). The strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the number of publications of men PIs. When the gender of PI and co-PI were analyzed together, there was no significant difference in the number of grants or mean grant amount. Stratification by academic degree revealed no significant difference between both genders for the mean NIH grant amount. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing representation of women within the discipline of family medicine, men continue to receive higher average NIH grant amounts compared to women. The differences are multifactorial and may include differences in academic productivity or grant committees' heuristics. Overall, the results were promising with little evidence of significant gender disequilibrium within NIH-funding for researchers in FM.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The workplace culture, mental health and wellbeing of early- and mid-career health academics: a cross-sectional analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Marck, Claudia H.
    ;
    Ayton, Darshini
    ;
    Steward, Trevor
    ;
    Koay, Hui-Fern
    ;
    Wiley, Joshua F.
    There are reports of poor working conditions for early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) in universities, however, empirical data using validated tools are scarce. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using validated tools to assess workplace satisfaction, exposure to workplace abuse, and mental health. Participants included employees of medical and health faculties of two of the largest Australian universities, surveyed between October 2020 and January 2021.Overall, 284 participants responded. Many reported job insecurity: half (50.7%) working on contracts with less than one remaining year. Workloads were considerable, with 89.5% of participants working overtime and 54.8% reporting burnout. Workplace abuse in the forms of bullying (46.6%), sexual harassment (25.3%), sexism (49.8%) and racism (22.5%) were commonly reported. Clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.0%), anxiety (21.7%) and suicidal ideation or self-harm (13.6%) were reported; with a higher prevalence among those working more overtime, and those exposed to workplace abuse. Priorities include providing a stable and safe workplace, increasing accountability and transparency in addressing workplace abuse, and supporting professional development.In summary, EMCAs in our study were commonly exposed to precarious employment conditions and workplace abuse. Our findings provide empirical evidence on where universities and funding bodies should direct resources and change organisational risk factors, to improve workplace culture.
  • 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 Authorship of Family Medicine Publications, 2002-2017 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Keller, Tilden
    ;
    Wilson, Megan
    ;
    Chung, Kevin
    ;
    Andrilla, C. Holly A.
    ;
    Evans, David V.
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Representation of women in medicine is increasing, including in academic family medicine. Despite this, women continue to hold a minority of senior faculty and leadership roles. This study examines the trends of women first and senior authorship between 2002 and 2017 in five family medicine journals: Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician. The study also examines gender congruence between first and senior authors and women's membership on editorial boards. METHODS: We collected and analyzed data on a total of 1,671 original articles published in the five family medicine journals in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. We also examined the gender composition of the journals' editorial boards. RESULTS: Overall, women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017. There was no significant difference in women senior authorship or editorial board representation from 2002 to 2017. Both men and women senior authors partnered with women first authors significantly more over the 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: While there was a statistically significant increase in women first authors between 2002 and 2017, there is still a gap between women's authorship and editorial board representation and their representation within academic family medicine. These gaps could help to explain the continued lack of women represented within senior faculty positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Has female authorship in family medicine research evolved over time? Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Jabbarpour, Y.
    ;
    Wilkinson, E.
    ;
    Coffman, M.
    ;
    Mieses, A.
    PURPOSE Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. METHODS Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. RESULTS For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P= .49). CONCLUSIONS Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship. © 2020, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hsiehchen, D.
    ;
    Hsieh, A.
    ;
    Espinoza, M.
    IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 and Gender Differences in Family Medicine Scholarship Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Wright, K.M.
    ;
    Wheat, S.
    ;
    Clements, D.S.
    ;
    Edberg, D.
    This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted submission rates to Annals of Family Medicine by gender. Women represented 46.3% of all manuscript submissions included in our study (n = 1,964/4,238), spanning from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2020. The overall volume of submissions increased during COVID-19 in comparison to pre-pandemic months; however, this increase was not evenly distributed among men and women (122% increase vs 101% increase, respectively). In the early months of the pandemic, 244 submissions were authored by men (58.5%), and 173 submissions were authored by women (41.5%). The gap in women’s submission rates is troubling, as it suggests they may be at greater risk of falling behind male colleagues during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2022, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in the gender ratio of authorship at the Robert Graham center Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Wilkinson, E.
    ;
    Coffman, M.
    ;
    Huffstetler, A.
    ;
    Bazemore, A.
    ;
    Jabbarpour, Y.
    Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach. © 2020, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Open PDF 
    (1995)
    Tesch, B.J.
    ;
    Wood, H.M.
    ;
    Helwig, A.L.
    ;
    Nattinger, A.B.
    To assess possible explanations for the finding that the percentage of women medical school faculty members holding associate or full professor rank remains well below the percentage of men. —Cross-sectional survey of physician faculty of US medical schools using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database. —Surveyed were 153 women and 263 men first appointed between 1979 and 1981, matched for institutions of original faculty appointment. —Academic rank achieved, career preparation, academic resources at first appointment, familial responsibilities, and academic productivity. —After a mean of 11 years on a medical school faculty, 59% of women compared with 83% of men had achieved associate or full professor rank, and 5% of women compared with 23% of men had achieved full professor rank. Women and men reported similar preparation for an academic career, but women began their careers with fewer academic resources. The number of children was not associated with rank achieved. Women worked about 10% fewer hours per week and had authored fewer publications. After adjustment for productivity factors, women remained less likely to be associate or full professors (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.66) or to achieve full professor rank (adjusted OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63). Based on the AAMC database, 50% of both women and men originally appointed as faculty members between 1979 and 1981 had left academic medicine by 1991. —Women physician medical school faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Gender differences in rank achieved are not explained by productivity or by differential attrition from academic medicine. (JAMA. 1995;273:1022-1025). © 1995, Jama, All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sebo, P.
    ;
    de Lucia, S.
    ;
    Vernaz, N.
    Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians. © 2020, The Author(s).