PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.General MedicineViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item type:Publication,
    Expanding focus: reimagining and broadening women’s leadership programs in academic medicine Open PDF 
    (Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025-12-03)
    Iyer, Maya S
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Singer, Kanakadurga
    ;
    Overholser, Barbara
    ;
    Spector, Nancy D
    In light of increasing legislation aimed at prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at publicly funded universities in the United States, women-only leadership programs (WOLPs) have come under increasing pressure, which could undermine gender equity advancements, particularly in academic medicine. Women-only leadership programs have traditionally offered a unique advantage for women over mixed-gender leadership programs by fostering psychologically safe spaces to share experiences, teaching leadership competencies while using a gender equity lens in areas where it makes sense, and providing essential support in the form of mentorship and sponsorship. Women-only leadership program participation is also ­associated with increased promotion rates, retention rates, and leadership roles. Given the current political environment, this is a pivotal moment—and a key opportunity—to elevate the work of WOLPs by expanding their reach to include all individuals who can benefit from their programming and help build a more inclusive and equitable field. To this end, WOLPs must reimagine, reframe, and rebrand their work to continue cultivating the future generation of health care leaders, focusing on a central tenet of WOLPs: different people have different experiences and are treated differently. As the national focus on DEI work evolves, it is imperative that WOLPs evolve and expand spaces for leadership development for all talented individuals to ensure that there continues to be progress in gender representation and leadership advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Protocol to Assess Contextual Factors During Program Impact Evaluation: A Case Study of a STEM Gender Equity Intervention in Higher Education Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Nobrega, S
    ;
    Edwards, K
    ;
    El Ghaziri, M
    ;
    Giacobbe, L
    ;
    Rice, S
    Program evaluations that lack experimental design often fail to produce evidence of impact because there is no available control group. Theory-based evaluations can generate evidence of a program's causal effects if evaluators collect evidence along the theorized causal chain and identify possible competing causes. However, few methods are available for assessing competing causes in the program environment. Effect Modifier Assessment (EMA) is a method previously used in smaller-scale studies to assess possible competing causes of observed changes following an intervention. In our case study of a university gender equity intervention, EMA generated useful evidence of competing causes to augment program evaluation. Top-down administrative culture, poor experiences with hiring and promotion, and workload were identified as impeding forces that might have reduced program benefits. The EMA addresses a methodological gap in theory-based evaluation and might be useful in a variety of program settings.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Merriman, Rebekah
    ;
    Galizia, Ilaria
    ;
    Tanaka, Sonja
    ;
    Sheffel, Ashley
    ;
    Buse, Kent
    INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mamtani, Mira
    ;
    Shofer, Frances
    ;
    Mudan, Anita
    ;
    Khatri, Utsha
    ;
    Walker, Rachael
    BACKGROUND: Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author. RESULTS: Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
  • 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,
    How Does Representation of Women on Editorial Boards Compare Among Orthopaedic, General Surgery, and Internal Medicine Journals? Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Lin, James S.
    ;
    Weber, Kristy L.
    ;
    Samora, Julie Balch
    Background Women have historically been underrepresented as editors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Studies have demonstrated that there are differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender, suggesting that greater representation by women on editorial boards may improve the quality and diversity of the review process. Therefore, the current representation of women on the editorial boards of orthopaedic journals, particularly compared with peer-reviewed surgical and medical journals, is of interest. Questions/purposes (1) What is the representation of women as members of editorial boards of prominent orthopaedic surgery journals? (2) How does it compare with representation on the editorial boards of journals in general surgery and internal medicine? Methods The top 15 journals with a strong clinical emphasis based on Impact Factor (Clarivate Analytics) calculated by the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were identified for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery (and all general surgical subspecialties), and internal medicine (with representative internal medicine subspecialties). Clinical publications with their primary editorial office located in the United States led predominantly by physicians or basic scientists were eligible for inclusion. The members of an editorial board were identified from the journals’ websites. The gender of editors with gender-neutral names (and editors whose gender we considered uncertain) was identified by an internet search for gender-specific pronouns and/or pictures from an institutional profile. Fisher exact tests and t-tests were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Of the editors analyzed, women made up 9% (121 of 1383) of editorial boards in the orthopaedic journals with the highest Impact Factors, compared with 21% (342 of 1665) of general surgery journals (p < 0.001) and 35% (204 of 587) of internal medicine journals (p < 0.001). The overall mean composition of editorial boards of orthopaedic journals was 10% ± 8% women, compared with that of general surgery, which was 19% ± 6% women (p < 0.001), and that of internal medicine, which was 40% ± 19% women (p < 0.001). Conclusion Women make up a smaller proportion of editorial boards at orthopaedic surgery journals than they do at general surgery and internal medicine journals. However, their representation appears to be comparable to the proportion of women in orthopaedics overall (approximately 6%) and the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics (approximately 19%). Ways to improve the proportion of women on editorial boards might include structured mentorship programs at institutions and personal responsibility for championing mentorship and diversity on an individual level. Clinical Relevance Increasing representation of women on editorial boards may improve the diversity of perspectives and quality of future published research, generate visible role models for young women considering orthopaedics as a career, and improve patient care through enriching the diversity of our specialty.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    Explaining Course Enrollment Gaps in High School: Examination of Gender-Imbalance in the Applied Sciences Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Freeman, JA
    ;
    Gottfried, MA
    ;
    Odle, TK
    Federal policy in the United States has urged high schools to expand offerings in career and technical education (CTE) coursework to address persistent gender inequities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields. Unfortunately, gender composition in engineering and health sciences CTE enrollment is highly imbalanced and reflects postsecondary and labor market trends. Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, we use decomposition techniques to examine which student, family, and school factors explain gender-imbalanced enrollment in STEMM-focused CTE courses. The results indicate student occupational expectations were the largest contributor to gender gaps across content areas.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Cassia-Silva, C
    ;
    Rocha, BS
    ;
    Lievano-Latorre, LF
    ;
    Sobreiro, MB
    ;
    Diele-Viegas, LM
    Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.