PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, 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, ReshmaCardel, 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.Item type:Publication, Plafond de verre pour les femmes dans les carrières hospitalo-universitaires en France Open PDF(2019) ;Rosso, C. ;Leger, A.Steichen, O.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether career development in academic medicine is more difficult for women than for men, and, if any, the nature and level of barriers to this progression. METHODS: Extraction of full-time medical staff in a Parisian hospital group, through the SIGAPS platform; an online questionnaire survey of career choices and barriers experienced by full-time male and female physicians. The study population comprises 181 hospital practitioners and 141 academic physicians (49 associate professors and 92 full professors). RESULTS: Women represent 49% of the medical staff but 15% of full professors. This underrepresentation of women is more important among intensivists/anesthesiologists than technique-based specialists (such as radiologists, biologists…). There is no difference in scientific output, marital status and parenthood between women and men. On the other hand, there is a difference in attitudes highlighted by the EVAR risk-taking scale as well as in the burden of familial involvement and the prejudices felt by women during the academic selection process. CONCLUSION: The glass ceiling exists in one of the largest French hospital group. Career development principles promote merit, but should decrease the benefit of "masculine" attitudes in the competition for academic positions. Academic selection criteria should evolve to limit the disadvantage of women related to deeper familial involvement and less competitive strategies and risk-taking attitudes.Item type:Publication, Gender disparities in scientific production: A nationwide assessment among physicians in Peru Open PDF(2019) ;Amaya, E. ;Mougenot, B.Herrera-Añazco, P.Objective To determine the presence of a gender gap in the scientific production among Peruvian physicians and analyze either gap is associated with the presence of observable factors or the presence of prejudices against female physicians. Methods We analyzed data from the National Survey of User Satisfaction in Health 2016, a nationally representative survey that collected information about medical professionals working in health institutions in Peru. The outcome of interest was the number of publications in indexed journals. We estimated the gender gap in scientific production using the Oaxaca-Blinder (OB) decomposition method. Results From the 2216 physicians surveyed, 252 reported published at least one article in an indexed journal. From physicians with scientific production, 37.7% were women. The analysis of OB decomposition showed a gap of 2.11 indexed publications, disfavoring female physicians (p<0.01). Likewise, the explained component was 1.36 publications, representing 64.5% of the total gap (p<0.05). Conclusions There is a gender gap in the number of publications in indexed journals among Peruvian physicians. This gap is mainly explained by observable factors, such as the years of medical practice, being an accredited researcher and being a professor. © 2019 Amaya 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.