PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 23

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review Open PDF
(2021)
Madden, Caoimhe
;
O'Malley, Róisín
;
O'Connor, Paul
;
O'Dowd, Emily
;
Byrne, Dara
CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
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.
Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: A retrospective bibliometric study Open PDF
(2021)
Lee, S.F.
;
Redondo Sánchez, D.
;
Sánchez, M.
;
Gelaye, B.
;
Chiang, C.L.
Objective We evaluated the temporal trend in gender ratios of first and last authors in the field of oncological research published in major general medical and oncology journals and examined the gender pattern in coauthorship. Design We conducted a retrospective study in PubMed using the R package RISmed. We retrieved original research articles published in four general medical journals and six oncology specialty journals. These journals were selected based on their impact factors and popularity among oncologists. We identified the names of first and last authors from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2019. The gender of the authors was identified and validated using the Gender API database (https://gender-api.com/). Primary and secondary outcome measures The percentages of first and last authors by gender and the gender ratios (male to female) and temporal trends in gender ratios of first and last authors were determined. Results We identified 34 624 research articles, in which 32 452 had the gender of both first and last authors identified. Among these 11 650 (33.6%) had women as the first author and 7908 (22.8%) as the last author, respectively. The proportion of female first and last authors increased from 26.6% and 16.2% in 2002, to 32.9% and 27.5% in 2019, respectively. However, the gender ratio (male to female) of first and last authors decreased by 1.5% and 2.6% per year, respectively, which were statistically significant (first author: Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00; last author: IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). Male first and last authorship was the most common combination. Male-female and female-female pairs increased by 2.0% and 5.0%, respectively (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 and IRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, respectively). Conclusions The continued under-representation of women means that more efforts to address parity for advancement of women in academic oncology are needed. © 2021 Author(s). Published by BMJ.
Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women's reproductive physiology Open PDF
(2022)
Kalidasan, Dharani
;
Goshtasebi, Azita
;
Chrisler, Joan
;
Brown, Helen L.
;
Prior, Jerilynn C.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment. DESIGN: A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors. CONCLUSION: Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results