PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Evolution of Female Leadership in MedicineBibliometric Analysis and Evaluation of the Last 50 Years Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Mendoza, C.S.
    ;
    Gomez, A.P.B.
    ;
    Tobar, V.
    ;
    Carvajal, L.C.
    ;
    Vega, J.
    Objective Perform a biometrical analysis of female leadership in medicine, in order to know the actual perspective and guide future research. Materials and Methods: A retrospective descriptive bibliometric analysis of the literature available in MEDLINE was performed in relation to the leadership of female physicians from 1973 to 2019, through MEDLINE database, using GoPubmed and FABUMED. The following strategy was deployed: ("Leadership"[Mesh]) AND "Physicians, Women"[Mesh] (1973:2019[dp]). Original articles, journal articles, essays, scientific reports and reviews were included to analyze all related indexed literature. To obtain the impact factor (FI), the Journal Citation Reports (7) 2017/2018 of the journals found was used to estimate the quality of each one of them. Results A total of 310 references were found in 139 published journals, 71.2% were original articles; the remaining 22% were reviews. There was a 11.9% increase in publications from 1996 to 2019. The journals with the highest rate of publications were: Academic Medicine and J Womens Health (Larchmt) with 7.7% and 7.1%. Countries with the highest number of publications were United States with 66 (56%), and United Kingdom with 10 (8.6%). Latin America has four publications, while Colombia has none. Conclusion Female leadership in the medical field and the publications regarding this subject have increased in the last decades, mainly in developed countries. Latin America has to make significant efforts to produce more publications in journals with high impact factor, in order to close the gender gap in the medical field. © 2021 Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Li, Ben
    ;
    Jacob-Brassard, Jean
    ;
    Dossa, Fahima
    ;
    Salata, Konrad
    ;
    Kishibe, Teruko
    OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance: is there a 'gender gap' in academic medicine? An Academic Health Science Centre perspective Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Athanasiou, T.
    ;
    Patel, V.
    ;
    Garas, G.
    ;
    Ashrafian, H.
    ;
    Hull, L.
    OBJECTIVES: The 'gender gap' in academic medicine remains significant and predominantly favours males. This study investigates gender disparities in research performance in an Academic Health Science Centre, while considering factors such as mentoring and scientific collaboration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Professorial registry-based electronic survey (n=215) using bibliometric data, a mentoring perception survey and social network analysis. Survey outcomes were aggregated with measures of research performance (publications, citations and h-index) and measures of scientific collaboration (authorship position, centrality and social capital). Univariate and multivariate regression models were constructed to evaluate inter-relationships and identify gender differences. RESULTS: One hundred and four professors responded (48% response rate). Males had a significantly higher number of previous publications than females (mean 131.07 (111.13) vs 79.60 (66.52), p=0.049). The distribution of mentoring survey scores between males and females was similar for the quality and frequency of shared core, mentor-specific and mentee-specific skills. In multivariate analysis including gender as a variable, the quality of managing the relationship, frequency of providing corrective feedback and frequency of building trust had a statistically significant positive influence on number of publications (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in healthcare research to investigate the relationship between mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance in the context of gender. It presents a series of initiatives that proved effective in marginalising the gender gap. These include the Athena Scientific Women's Academic Network charter, new recruitment and advertisement strategies, setting up a 'Research and Family Life' forum, establishing mentoring circles for women and projecting female role models. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/