PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11

Leadership, recognition awards, and publication by men and women in the American Academy of Neurology Open PDF
(2020)
Miyasaki, J.M.
;
Maplethorpe, E.
;
Yuan, Y.
;
Keran, C.
;
Gross, R.A.
OBJECTIVE: To study sex differences with respect to publications, leadership, and recognition awards in the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) in light of recent research highlighting inequities in these domains. METHODS: We examined medical school graduation, neurology residency (using American Medical Association and American Council for Graduate Medical Education data), membership in the AAN, first and last authorship in Neurology®, membership on AAN committees, and AAN recognition awards by sex for 1997, 2007, and 2017. RESULTS: Female medical students were less likely to enter neurology residency in 1997 only. In 2007 and 2017, there was no proportionate difference between men and women as last author, a surrogate for senior member of the author panel. In 2017, women were proportionately more likely to be first authors than men, a surrogate for principal investigator of the study. Committee membership was less for women in 1997 and 2007 (p < 0.001) but was not proportionately different in 2017 (p = 0.534). Women were proportionately more likely to receive recognition awards in all years studied (1997 p = 0.008, 2007 p < 0.001, 2017 p < 0.001), although absolute numbers of women were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Female membership, leadership (through committee membership), and publications as last author were lower in 1997 in the AAN. These same metrics demonstrated substantial proportionate changes, with no differences in last authorship in 2007 and 2017, greater likelihood for women to be first author in 2017, no differences in committee membership in 2017, and greater likelihood of receiving awards determined by merit in all 3 years. © 2020 American Academy of Neurology.
Sticky Floor, Broken Ladder, and Glass Ceiling: Gender and Racial Trends Among Neurosurgery Residents
(2021)
Maqsood, Hamza
;
Younus, Shifa
;
Naveed, Sadiq
;
Chaudhary, Amna Mohyud Din
;
Khan, Muhammad T.
Introduction Diversity and equity in academic medicine are critically important in improving healthcare standards and patient-related outcomes. Gender and racial disparities are some major challenges faced by the health system. This article reviews the gender and racial trends among residents of neurosurgery in the United States (US). Methods We retrospectively analyzed the data extracted from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)'s annual Data Resource Books from 2007 to 2019. ACGME cataloged gender as men and women and race/ethnicity was categorized as White/non-Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Island, Hispanic, Black/non-Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan, others, and unknown. Counts, proportions, relative, and absolute percentage changes were calculated to highlight trends in resident appointments over time and across the specialty of neurosurgery. Results The number of female residents increased steadily from 10.6% in 2007 to 19.3% in 2019; with an absolute increase of 8.74%, a relative increase of 63.9%, and a simultaneous decrease in male residents. When averaged across the nine-year study period, 51% of the study sample was White (non-Hispanic), followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders at 15.2%. The representation of Hispanics was 4.3%, Black/African Americans were 4.5%, Native Americans/Alaskans were 0.2%, and others were 8% of the total study population. Conclusion Our study concludes that gender and racial disparity persist within the neurosurgery residency training programs in the US. Concrete efforts at all academic levels are needed to provide greater support for the females and for the careers of underrepresented minority (URM) trainees to ensure their increased representation in neurosurgery.
Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2023)
Kyarunts, M.
;
Michaelcheck, C.E.
;
Kobeissi, H.
;
Kallmes, D.F.
;
Agid, R.
Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
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.
Women Representation as First and Corresponding Authors in Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care Journals: A Retrospective Analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Gupta, Nidhi
;
Banerjee, Shraya
;
Choudhury, Kalyanpury J.
;
Prabhakar, Hemanshu
INTRODUCTION: There is limited literature on the representation of women in leading roles in neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care academia. We aimed to determine the representation of women as first and corresponding authors in articles published in 3 dedicated journals of neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care during last 5 years. METHODS: Articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, Neurocritical Care, and Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The primary outcome was the proportion of women first authors, and secondary outcomes were the percentage of women corresponding authors, and representation of women as first and corresponding author by article type and country of affiliation. RESULTS: Of the 1164 articles included in the study, 403 (34.6%) had a woman first author. Women first authorship was highest for Special Articles (5/11; 45.5%), Clinical Reports (44/113; 38.9%) and Narrative Review Articles (58/151; 38.4%) and lowest for Original Research Articles (198/597; 33.2%). Women accounted for 29.6% (344/1164) of corresponding authors across all article types. Overall, the United States and India had the highest representation of women first authors (159/403; 39.0% and 107/344; 31.0%, respectively), and India also had highest proportion of women corresponding authors (107/272; 39.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Women were underrepresented compared with men as first author of articles published in 3 dedicated neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care journals over the last 5 years. Women had the lowest representation as authors of Original Research Articles.
Increases in female academic productivity and female mentorship highlight sustained progress in previously identified neurosurgical gender disparities Open PDF
(2021)
Taha, Birra
;
Sadda, Praneeth
;
Winston, Graham
;
Odigie, Eseosa
;
Londono, Cristina
OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was performed to understand disparities in the representation of female authorship within the neurosurgical literature and implications for career advancement of women in neurosurgery. METHODS: Author names for articles published in 16 of the top neurosurgical journals from 2002 to 2019 were obtained from MEDLINE. The gender of each author was determined using automated prediction methods. Publication trends were compared over time and across subdisciplines. Female authorship was also compared to the proportionate composition of women in the field over time. RESULTS: The metadata obtained from 16 major neurosurgical journals yielded 66,546 research articles. Gender was successfully determined for 96% (127,809/133,578) of first and senior authors, while the remainder (3.9%) were unable to be determined through prediction methods. Across all years, 13.3% (8826) of articles had female first authorship and 9.1% (6073) had female senior authorship. Female first authorship increased significantly over time from 5.8% in 2002 to 17.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Female senior authorship also increased significantly over time, from 5.5% in 2002 to 12.0% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The journals with the highest proportions of female first authors and senior authors were the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (33.5%) and the Asian Journal of Neurosurgery (23.8%), respectively. Operative Neurosurgery had the lowest fraction of female first (12.4%) and senior (4.7%) authors. There was a significant difference between the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical trainees and the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical first (p < 0.001) and senior (p < 0.001) authors. Articles were also more likely to have a female first author if the senior author of the article was female (OR 2.69, CI 2.52-2.86; p < 0.001). From 1944 to 2019, the Journal of Neurosurgery showed a steady increase in female first and senior authorship, with a plateau beginning in the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: Large meta-analysis techniques have the potential to effectively leverage large amounts of bibliometric data to quantify the representation of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The proportion of female authors in major neurosurgical journals has steadily increased. However, the rate of increase in female senior authorship has lagged behind the rate of increase in first authorship, indicating a disparity in academic advancement in women in neurosurgery.
Gender Prevalence and Trends in Otology and Neurotology Publications Open PDF
(2021)
Schauwecker, N.
;
Kaplan, A.
;
Hunter, J.B.
Objective:To assess otology and neurotology authorship by gender, subject, and country of origin from 2000 to 2019.Study Design:Retrospective review of otology and neurotology publications in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 from 10 prominent journals within otolaryngology.Main Outcome Measures:Demographics for first through third and final authors, including gender, degree, coauthorship, as well as number of authors, subject matter, and region of origin for each publication.Results:A total of 4,411 neurotology articles published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 were analyzed. During the study period, the proportion of female authors increased from 22.3% in 2000 to 33.9% in 2019 (p<0.0001). However, authorship position analysis demonstrated no increase in final female authorship (22.5% in 2019, from 19.4% in 2000, p=0.112). Geographic region analysis demonstrated a similar overall global trend toward an increase in female authors. When considering author gender by position, North America, the Middle East, and Africa failed to demonstrate significant increasing trends for female final authors. Female final authors were also significantly less likely to have medical degrees than final male authors, (37.4% versus 78.6%, respectfully, p=<0.0001). Finally, women published more often within the subjects of pediatrics and audiology (46.5% and 37.3% of final authors, p<0.0001).Conclusions:Female authorship in otology and neurotology has increased globally. With the predominant number of articles originating from North America, and articles originating from North America failing to demonstrate an increase in female final authorship, overall, final female authorship did not change during the study period.Professional Practice Gap and Educational Need:There is no comprehensive study exploring gender distribution within only the specialty of otology and neurotology. While it is known that more women are becoming otolaryngologists, it is unknown if this increase is reflected in otology and neurotology publications, domestically and internationally.Learning Objective:To understand if gender biases and/or differences exist within otology and neurotology publications.Desired Result:Identify trends in otology and neurotology publications to address particular barriers to female publication within the field. © 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
Women’s role in neurosurgical research: is the gender gap improving? Open PDF
(2021)
Pastor-Cabeza, M.
;
Torné, R.
;
García-Armengol, R.
;
Menéndez-Osorio, B.
;
Mosteiro-Cadaval, A.
Objective The percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons. Methods Two of the most prominent neurosurgical journals—Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery—were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions’ region. Results A total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001). Conclusions Although this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers’ profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates. ©AANS 2021, except where prohibited by US copyright law
Was the COVID-19 Pandemic Associated with Gender Disparities in Authorship of Manuscripts Submitted to Clinical Neuropsychology Journals? Open PDF
(2023)
Babicz, M.A.
;
Matchanova, A.
;
Broomfield, R.
;
Desruisseaux, L.A.
;
Gereau, M.M.
Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals. Method: Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender. Results: Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field. Conclusions: Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic. Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2021.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results