PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 24

Experiences of Women Faculty in an Academic Medical Center Open PDF
(SAGE Publications, 2025-03-13)
Esplin, Charlotte R.
;
Calderwood, Lisa
;
Weisenmuller, Chantel M.
;
Luzier, Jessica L.
BACKGROUND: Women faculty face different obstacles in academic medical careers than their men counterparts. Women faculty report feeling like "outsiders" and experiencing multiple barriers to career advancement compared with men, especially if they hold a nonmedical degree (e.g., PhD). This study examined aspects of workplace culture that differentially impact women at a large regional academic medical center (AMC) in the Appalachian region of the United States-a geographic area that is largely understudied in this body of literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven women completed a survey that included the Culture Conducive to Women's Academic Success instrument, the Professional Fulfillment Index, the Work and Family Conflict scale, and items measuring burnout, childcare availability, and demographic factors. RESULTS: Our findings revealed that many women faculty felt that they were being treated differently than men faculty, that work infringed on their home and family life, and that while they were professionally fulfilled at work, childcare problems exacerbated feelings of wanting to leave that AMC. About 60% of our sample indicated some level of burnout. CONCLUSIONS: These findings align with previous findings that women juggle multiple roles that are typically not expected of men, and this juggling may be one reason why women are not staying in academic medicine or being promoted at the same rate as men. We provide incremental validity for the measures used and delineate specific ideas for improvement, such as on-site childcare, standardized leave policies, and formal mentorship and curriculum programs.
United States Medical School Academic Faculty Workforce Diversity, Institutional Characteristics, and Geographical Distributions From 2014-2018
(2022)
Ogunyemi, Dotun
;
Okekpe, C. Camille
;
Barrientos, Devin R.
;
Bui, Tina
;
Au, Melanie N.
Purpose Academic healthcare workforce diversity is important in addressing health disparities. Our goal was to evaluate trends and associations in faculty diversity of United States (US) medical schools over a five-year period. Methods We analyzed the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster data of 151 US medical schools from 2014-2018. Outcome faculty variables were female gender, underrepresented in medicine (UiM), age, and professorial representation. Predictor variables included geographical distributions, and institutional characteristics. Statistical analysis included Jonckheere-Terpstra test, ANOVA, and regression analysis. Results Female faculty increased from 37.6% to 40.4% (p<0.001), senior faculty (age >60 years) from 22.6% to 25.9% (p=0.001) while UiM faculty stayed relatively flat from 9.74% to 10.08% (p=0.773). UiM [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.39, p=0.015], and female faculty (aOR=0.3, p=0.001) had independently significantly decreased associations with professorial representation, while senior faculty had increased associations (aOR=3.82, p<0.001). Significant independent differences occurred in female, UiM, and professorial faculty distributions within US regions; Hispanic faculty were highest in Southwest (6.57%) and lowest in Midwest region (1.59%), while African-American faculty were highest in Southeast (8.15%) but lowest in the West (3.12%). UiM faculty had significantly independent decreased associations with MD/PhD degree (aOR=0.30, p=0.004) and higher US ranking institutions (aOR=0.45, p=0.009). Conclusions From 2014 to 2018, female faculty increased modestly while the UiM faculty trend remained flat. Female and UiM faculty were less represented at the professor level. UiM faculty were less represented in higher-ranking institutions. Geographic location is associated with faculty diversity.
A Data-Based Approach to Evaluating Representation by Gender and Affiliation in Key Presentation Formats at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research Open PDF
(2021)
Nobles, C.J.
;
Lu, Y.-L.
;
Andriessen, V.C.
;
Bevan, S.S.
;
Radoc, J.G.
The annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) is a major forum for sharing new research and promoting the career development of participants. Because of this, evaluating representation in key presentation formats is critical. For the 3,257 presentations identified at the 2015-2017 SER annual meetings, we evaluated presenter characteristics, including gender, affiliation, subject area, and h-index, and representation in 3 highlighted presentation formats: platform talks (n = 382), invited symposium talks (n = 273), and chairing a concurrent contributed session or symposium (n = 188). Data were abstracted from SER records, abstract booklets, and programs. Gender was assessed using GenderChecker software, and h-index was determined using the Scopus application programming interface. Log-binomial models were adjusted for participant characteristics and conference year. In adjusted models, women were less likely than men to present an invited symposium talk (relative risk = 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 0.81) compared with all participants with accepted abstracts. Researchers from US public universities, US government institutions, and international institutions were less likely to present a symposium talk or to chair a concurrent contributed session or symposium than were researchers from US private institutions. The research areas that were most represented in platform talks were epidemiologic methods, social epidemiology, and cardiovascular epidemiology. Our findings suggest differences in representation by gender, affiliation, and subject area after accounting for h-index. © 2021 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review Open PDF
(2021)
Misra, Vaidehi
;
Safi, Frozan
;
Brewerton, Kathryn A.
;
Wu, Wei
;
Mason, Robin
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.
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.
Toward Gender Equity in Academic Promotions Open PDF
(American Medical Association, 2021)
Marcotte, Leah M
;
Arora, Vineet M
;
Ganguli, Ishani
Promotion in academicmedicinedrives career opportunities, including leadership roles and salary increases. Yet women physicians face slower promotional timelines and are less likely to reach associate or full professorship compared with their male counterparts, a gap that has not meaningfully changed in more than 3 decades. 1In 2019, only 26% of full professors and 39% of associate professors in US medical schools were women despite representing 48% of assistant professors and 43% of all full-time US medical school faculty. 2 These disparities are even worse for women in underrepresentedminority groups. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a worrisome backslide.3 In leaving unrealized the full potential of female faculty, these disparities are detrimental to medicine as a whole. The promotion gapmaybepartiallyexplainedbyoutdated promotion processes that were developed when the physician workforce was largely male but now serve to disadvantage women throughout their academic careers. Too often we put the onus on women to change their behavior, but closing this gap will require institutions to make promotion systems and policies more equitable. In this Viewpoint, we unpack structural barriers to promotion, specifically for female junior faculty going from assistant to associate professor. We consider how institutionscan rethinkpromotionand reverseharms that were precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic to promote gender equity leading up to promotion and at the time of promotion.
Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research Open PDF
(2021)
Lydon, Sinéad
;
Madden, Caoimhe
;
De Bhulbh, Áine
;
Maher, Senan
;
Byrne, Dara
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.
The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF
(2022)
Lufler, Rebecca S.
;
McNulty, Margaret A.
The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.
Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF
(2021)
Krukowski, Rebecca A.
;
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Cardel, Michelle I.
Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.
The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF
(2006)
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Guancial, Elizabeth A.
;
Worobey, Cynthia Cooper
;
Henault, Lori E.
;
Chang, Yuchiao
BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results