PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesSubject: search.filters.subject.Articles

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Meyer, A.
    ;
    Streichert, T.
    Background: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. Methods: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. Results: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. Conclusions: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively. © 2024 JMIR Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2022)
    Krstacic, J.E.
    ;
    Carr, B.M.
    ;
    Yaligar, A.R.
    ;
    Kuruvilla, A.S.
    ;
    Helali, J.S.
    Introduction In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). Materials and methods Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. Results Compared to 37.23% of 2002 – 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women’s first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and coauthors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). Discussion Since 2002, this authorship “gender disparity chasm” has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet’s 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation. © 2022 Krstacic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender gap in the next generation of physician-scientists: Medical student interest and participation in research Open PDF 
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2002)
    Guelich, J.M.
    ;
    Singer, B.H.
    ;
    Castro, M.C.
    ;
    Rosenberg, L.E.
    Background: For 2 decades, the number of physician-scientists has not kept pace with the overall growth of the medical research community. Concomitantly, the number of women entering medical schools has increased markedly. We have explored the effect of the changing gender composition of medical schools on the present and future pipeline of young physician-scientists. Methods: We analyzed data obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute pertaining to the expressed research intentions or research participation of male and female medical students in the United States. Results: A statistically significant decline in the percentage of matriculating and graduating medical students-both men and women-who expressed strong research career intentions occurred during the decade between 1987 and 1997. Moreover, matriculating and graduating women were significantly less likely than men to indicate strong research career intentions. Each of these trends has been observed for medical schools overall and for research-intensive ones. Cohort data obtained by tracking individuals from matriculation to graduation revealed that women who expressed strong research career intentions upon matriculation were more likely than men to decrease their research career intentions during medical school. Medical student participation in research supported the gender gap identified by assessing research intentions. Female medical student participation in the Medical Scientist Training Program and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute/National Institutes of Health-sponsored Cloisters Program has increased but lags far behind the growth in the female population in medical schools. Conclusion: Three worrisome trends in the research career intentions and participation of the nation's medical students (a decade-long decline for both men and women, a large and persistent gender gap, and a negative effect of the medical school experience for women) presage a further decline in the physician-scientist pipeline unless they are reversed promptly and decisively.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC? Open PDF 
    (Australasian Medical Publishing Co. Ltd, 1998)
    Ward, J.E.
    ;
    Donnelly, N.
    Objective: To assess whether there is gender bias in the allocation of research fellowships granted by the Research Fellowships Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Data sources: Anonymous data from applications for a research fellowship from 1994 to 1997. Results: More men than women apply for research fellowships (sex ratio, 2.5:1), but there is no difference in the proportion of male or female applicants who succeed in their application. Among new applicants, men tend to apply for a higher level of fellowship than women. Conclusions: Lack of data about the numbers of eligible men and women means that we cannot draw conclusions about self-selection biases among potential applicants. However, the selection procedures of the Committee appear to be unbiased. The gender of applicants does not influence the outcome of their application.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in leadership and scholarly productivity of academic hospitalists Open PDF 
    (John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2015)
    Burden, M.
    ;
    Frank, M.G.
    ;
    Keniston, A.
    ;
    Chadaga, S.R.
    ;
    Czernik, Z.
    BACKGROUND: Gender disparities still exist for women in academic medicine but may be less evident in younger cohorts. Hospital medicine is a new field, and the majority of hospitalists are <41 years of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity for academic hospitalists and to compare the findings to academic general internists. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study. SETTING: University programs in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Gender distribution of (1) academic hospitalists and general internists, (2) division or section heads for both specialties, (3) speakers at the 2 major national meetings of the 2 specialties, and (4) first and last authors of articles from the specialties' 2 major journals RESULTS: We found equal gender representation of hospitalists and general internists who worked in university hospitals. Divisions or sections of hospital medicine and general internal medicine were led by women at 11/69 (16%) and 28/80 (35%) of university hospitals, respectively (P=0.008). Women hospitalists and general internists were listed as speakers on 146/557 (26%) and 291/580 (50%) of the presentations at national meetings, respectively (P<0.0001), first authors on 153/464 (33%) and 423/895 (47%) publications, respectively (P<0.0001), and senior authors on 63/305 (21%) and 265/769 (34%) articles, respectively (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite hospital medicine being a newer field, gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.