PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14

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 workplace culture, mental health and wellbeing of early- and mid-career health academics: a cross-sectional analysis Open PDF
(2024)
Marck, Claudia H.
;
Ayton, Darshini
;
Steward, Trevor
;
Koay, Hui-Fern
;
Wiley, Joshua F.
There are reports of poor working conditions for early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) in universities, however, empirical data using validated tools are scarce. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using validated tools to assess workplace satisfaction, exposure to workplace abuse, and mental health. Participants included employees of medical and health faculties of two of the largest Australian universities, surveyed between October 2020 and January 2021.Overall, 284 participants responded. Many reported job insecurity: half (50.7%) working on contracts with less than one remaining year. Workloads were considerable, with 89.5% of participants working overtime and 54.8% reporting burnout. Workplace abuse in the forms of bullying (46.6%), sexual harassment (25.3%), sexism (49.8%) and racism (22.5%) were commonly reported. Clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.0%), anxiety (21.7%) and suicidal ideation or self-harm (13.6%) were reported; with a higher prevalence among those working more overtime, and those exposed to workplace abuse. Priorities include providing a stable and safe workplace, increasing accountability and transparency in addressing workplace abuse, and supporting professional development.In summary, EMCAs in our study were commonly exposed to precarious employment conditions and workplace abuse. Our findings provide empirical evidence on where universities and funding bodies should direct resources and change organisational risk factors, to improve workplace culture.
Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study Open PDF
(2020)
Mamtani, Mira
;
Shofer, Frances
;
Mudan, Anita
;
Khatri, Utsha
;
Walker, Rachael
BACKGROUND: Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author. RESULTS: Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
How Does Representation of Women on Editorial Boards Compare Among Orthopaedic, General Surgery, and Internal Medicine Journals? Open PDF
(2021)
Lin, James S.
;
Weber, Kristy L.
;
Samora, Julie Balch
Background Women have historically been underrepresented as editors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Studies have demonstrated that there are differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender, suggesting that greater representation by women on editorial boards may improve the quality and diversity of the review process. Therefore, the current representation of women on the editorial boards of orthopaedic journals, particularly compared with peer-reviewed surgical and medical journals, is of interest. Questions/purposes (1) What is the representation of women as members of editorial boards of prominent orthopaedic surgery journals? (2) How does it compare with representation on the editorial boards of journals in general surgery and internal medicine? Methods The top 15 journals with a strong clinical emphasis based on Impact Factor (Clarivate Analytics) calculated by the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were identified for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery (and all general surgical subspecialties), and internal medicine (with representative internal medicine subspecialties). Clinical publications with their primary editorial office located in the United States led predominantly by physicians or basic scientists were eligible for inclusion. The members of an editorial board were identified from the journals’ websites. The gender of editors with gender-neutral names (and editors whose gender we considered uncertain) was identified by an internet search for gender-specific pronouns and/or pictures from an institutional profile. Fisher exact tests and t-tests were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Of the editors analyzed, women made up 9% (121 of 1383) of editorial boards in the orthopaedic journals with the highest Impact Factors, compared with 21% (342 of 1665) of general surgery journals (p < 0.001) and 35% (204 of 587) of internal medicine journals (p < 0.001). The overall mean composition of editorial boards of orthopaedic journals was 10% ± 8% women, compared with that of general surgery, which was 19% ± 6% women (p < 0.001), and that of internal medicine, which was 40% ± 19% women (p < 0.001). Conclusion Women make up a smaller proportion of editorial boards at orthopaedic surgery journals than they do at general surgery and internal medicine journals. However, their representation appears to be comparable to the proportion of women in orthopaedics overall (approximately 6%) and the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics (approximately 19%). Ways to improve the proportion of women on editorial boards might include structured mentorship programs at institutions and personal responsibility for championing mentorship and diversity on an individual level. Clinical Relevance Increasing representation of women on editorial boards may improve the diversity of perspectives and quality of future published research, generate visible role models for young women considering orthopaedics as a career, and improve patient care through enriching the diversity of our specialty.
Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: A longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties Open PDF
(2018)
Lett, Elle
;
Orji, Whitney U.
;
Sebro, Ronnie
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in racial, ethnic, and sex representation at US medical schools across 16 specialties: internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, family practice, pathology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and dermatology. Using a novel, Census-derived statistical measure of diversity, the S-score, we quantified the degree of underrepresentation for racial minority groups and female faculty by rank for assistant, associate, and full professors from 1990-2016. METHODS: This longitudinal study of faculty diversity uses data obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster from US allopathic medical schools. The proportion of professors of racial minority groups and female faculty by rank was compared to the US population based on data from the US Census Bureau. The Roster includes data on 52,939 clinical medical faculty in 1990, and 129,545 in 2016, at the assistant professor level or higher. The primary measure used in this study was the S-score, a measure of representation based on the probability of the observed frequency of faculty from a racial/ethnic group and sex, given the racial and ethnic distribution of the US. Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals for S-score with time were used to measure trends. RESULTS: Blacks and Hispanics showed statistically significant trends (p<0.05) towards increasing underrepresentation in most specialties and are more underrepresented in 2016 than in 1990 across all ranks and specialties analyzed, except for Black females in obstetrics & gynecology. White females were also underrepresented in many specialties and in a subset of specialties trended toward greater underrepresentation. CONCLUSIONS: Current efforts to improve faculty diversity are inadequate in generating an academic physician workforce that represents the diversity of the US. More aggressive measures for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion are necessary to reach equity in academia and healthcare.
13-Year Analysis of Gender Disparity in Peer-reviewed Burn Literature
(2023)
Khan, IF
;
Ketheeswaran, S
;
Willey, B
;
Alasgarov, E
;
Turker, I
Women are less likely to be senior authors, invited to write in scientific journals, and to be cited in high impact journals. The aim of this study was to investigate trends in authorship and gender differences in peer-reviewed burn literature over 13 years. We performed a retrospective analysis of original research articles published from January 2009 to September 2021 in three burn journals. A gender determination application was used to categorize the gender of the first and senior author. Of the 3908 articles analyzed, 42.5% had a woman first author and 27.6% had a woman senior author. We identified 2029 unique senior authors, 29.0% of whom were women. Woman senior authorship was associated with increased odds of woman first authorship [OR = 2.31 (95% CI: 2.00, 2.67); P < .001]. The percentage of papers with a woman senior author increased from 17.8% in 2009 to 35.7% in 2021. If this 1.0% (95% CI: 0.50-1.51%) linear trend increase per year in woman senior authorship continues, we will expect to see equal proportions of woman and man senior authors in the included journals starting in 2037. The field of burn care is far from reaching gender parity with respect to authorship of peer-reviewed publications. Supporting and encouraging gender-concordant and discordant first:last authorship dyads in mentorship as well as redistributing obligations that may detract from authorship opportunities are potential ways to improve parity in authorship and academia.
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.
Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF
(2019)
Hsiehchen, D.
;
Hsieh, A.
;
Espinoza, M.
IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Ha, Giang L.
;
Lehrer, Eric J.
;
Wang, Ming
;
Holliday, Emma
;
Jagsi, Reshma
Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
Gender gap in research: A bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine Open PDF
(2021)
Sebo, P.
;
Maisonneuve, H.
;
Fournier, J.P.
Background: Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics. Methods: This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: Author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations. Results: The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]). Conclusions: The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed. © The Author(s) 2020.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results