PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Factors associated with homophobia in medical students from eleven Peruvian universities. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy
    ;
    Komori-Pariona, Jorge K.
    ;
    Sánchez, Alice G.
    ;
    Centeno-Leguía, Dercy
    ;
    Arestegui-Sánchez, Liz
    BACKGROUND: The consequences of homophobia can affect the integrity, mental and physical health of homosexual individuals in society. There are few studies in Peru that have evaluated homophobia in the medical student population. OBJECTIVE: To establish the social, educational and cultural factors associated with homophobia among Peruvian medical students. METHODS: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in 12 medicine schools in Peru. Homophobia was defined according to a validated test, which was associated with other variables. Statistical associations were identified. RESULTS: The lowest percentages of homophobic students (15-20%) were found in the four universities in Lima, while universities in the interior of the country had the highest percentages (22-62%). Performing a multivariate analysis, we found that the frequency of homophobia was lower for the following variables: the female gender (PRa=0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; p=0.005), studying at a university in Lima (PRa=0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.75; p<0.001), professing the Catholic religion (PRa=0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.76; p<0.001), knowing a homosexual (PRa=0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; p=0.003) and having treated a homosexual patient (PRa=0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; p=0.036). In contrast, the frequency of homophobia increased in male chauvinists (PRa=1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72; p=0.007), adjusted by four variables. CONCLUSIONS: Homophobia was less common in women, in those who study in the capital, those who profess Catholicism and those who know/have treated a homosexual. In contrast, male chauvinists were more homophobic.
  • 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,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    When perception is reality: Resident perception of faculty gender parity in a university-based internal medicine residency program. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lukela, Jennifer Reilly
    ;
    Ramakrishnan, Aditi
    ;
    Hadeed, Nicole
    ;
    Del Valle, John
    INTRODUCTION: Although women have entered medical school and internal medicine residency programs in significant numbers for decades, women faculty remain underrepresented in senior and departmental leadership roles. How residents perceive this gender disparity is unknown. We sought to assess resident perception of gender parity among departmental leadership and teaching faculty in our internal medicine department, and to determine the actual gender distribution of those faculty roles. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to evaluate resident perception of gender representation of various faculty roles. Using conference schedules, resident evaluations, and our department website, we determined the actual representation of women faculty in department leadership roles, and in clinical and educational activities. RESULTS: 88 of 164 residents (54%) responded. Women residents were less likely than men to perceive that women faculty were equally represented in department leadership (45% men agreed vs. 13% women, p < 0.05), clinical teaching roles (55% men agreed vs. 28% women, p < 0.05), or facilitating educational conferences (45% men agreed vs. 28% women, p = 0.074). In 2017, the internal medicine department at our institution comprised 815 faculty members, 473 men (58%) and 342 women (42%). At that time, women faculty held 5% of senior departmental leadership positions and 21% of educational leadership positions. During the year preceding survey distribution, women faculty attended on internal medicine inpatient wards for 33% of the total number of weeks, staffed 20% of morning reports, and facilitated 28% of noon conferences. DISCUSSION: Women residents in our internal medicine training program perceived a gender disparity among faculty in leadership and educational positions to a greater extent than male residents. The perception of women trainees was accurate. In addition to disproportionate underrepresentation in leadership positions, women faculty were underrepresented in prominent educational positions, including attending on inpatient services and serving as discussants at educational conferences.
  • 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,
    Gender Disparities in Medical Student Research Awards: A 13-Year Study from the Yale School of Medicine Open PDF 
    (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2018)
    King, J.T.
    ;
    Angoff, N.R.
    ;
    Forrest, J.N.
    ;
    Justice, A.C.
    Purpose The Liaison Committee on Medical Education mandates instruction in research conduct, and many U.S. Medical schools require students to complete a research project. All Yale School of Medicine (YSM) graduating students submit a research thesis, and ∼5% are awarded highest honors. Gender disparities exist in areas related to physician research productivity, including academic rank, research funding, and publications. The authors asked whether gender disparities exist for medical student research. Method The authors conducted a retrospective review of 1,120 theses submitted by graduating medical students from 2003 to 2015 at YSM and collected data on gender, mentoring, research type, sponsoring department, and other characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling examined gender differences in medical student research awards. Results Women authored 50.9% of theses, but earned only 30.9% of highest honors awards (OR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.74). Among factors associated with increased receipt of highest honors that differed by gender, men were more likely than women to work with a mentor with a history of three or more thesis honorees, take a fifth year of study, secure competitive research funding, undertake an MD-master of health science degree, and conduct laboratory research (all P <.001). After adjustment for these factors, and for underrepresented in medicine status and sponsoring department, women remained less likely to receive highest honors (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.98). Conclusions Women YSM students were less likely to receive highest honors for medical research. Gender disparities in postgraduate biomedical research success may start during undergraduate medical education. © 2018 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
  • 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/