PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Obstetrics & GynecologyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The proportion of male and female editors in women's health journals: A critical analysis and review of the sex gap Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Grinnell, Madison
    ;
    Higgins, Shauna
    ;
    Yost, Kelli
    ;
    Ochuba, Olivia
    ;
    Lobl, Marissa
    BACKGROUND: Historically, women have been underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine. The reasons for this are multifactorial. In recent years, women's representation in medicine has improved. However, inequities in the proportion of men and women in medical leadership remain, especially with regard to editorial journal boards. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore current trends of women in leadership positions on journal editorial boards. METHODS: A comprehensive search for women's health journals was performed in collaboration with university librarians in February 2019 using EMBASE, Scopus, SciFinder, and MEDLINE records for journals with relevance to women's health. Each journal was e-mailed to verify the accuracy of the journal editorial boards listed on their respective webpages. Five categories, as well as the totals for each journal, were analyzed for the proportion of women versus men: editor-in-chief, associate editor, deputy editor, and section editor, and other. RESULTS: Women comprised the minority of positions on women's health editorial boards. Of the total 1440 board members included, 602 members (42%) were women and 838 members (58%) were men. Women occupied 54 of 132 editor-in-chief positions (41%), 257 of 596 associate editor positions (43%), 13 of 42 deputy editor positions (30%), 46 of 120 section editor positions (38%), and 232 of 549 other editor positions (42%). CONCLUSION: Although the sex gap in leadership in medicine is improving, it is still present. Our findings suggest that women are underrepresented as editors at most levels in women's health journals centered on topics such as reproductive health, obstetrics and gynecology, perinatology, gynecological oncology, and breastfeeding. With sponsorship/mentorship for women, flexible scheduling, and considerate thought in leadership appointment, this sex gap will continue to improve.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Race, ethnicity, and gender in academic obstetrics and gynecology: 12-year trends Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Wooding, Denise J.
    ;
    Das, Priya
    ;
    Tiwana, Sabeen
    ;
    Siddiqi, Javed
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Background Diversity among healthcare teams enhances team function and improves the quality of patient care and outcomes. Women and racial minorities are historically underrepresented in medicine. However, the representation of gender and racial or ethnic groups in academic obstetrics and gynecology in the United States has not been described in recent years. Objective This study aimed to describe the recent state and trends in gender and racial or ethnic disparities in academic obstetrics and gynecology. Study Design Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges between 2007 and 2018 were analyzed to describe the trends in the representation of women and racial (white, Asian, black) or ethnic (Hispanic) groups. The 12-year trends in representation by academic ranks (all academic physicians, full professor, associate professor, instructor), leadership positions (chairperson), and tenure (not on track for tenure, on track for tenure, or tenured) were depicted. The 12-year trends were assessed using linear regression to determine whether the slope depicting the change in representation of each group from 2007 to 2018 was significantly nonzero. In addition, average representation of each group across the 12-year period was compared using a Student t test (for gender) or analysis of variance (for race and ethnicity). Results In 2018, there were 152 institutions and 6302 academic physicians included in the data set. On average across the 12-year period, academic physicians in obstetrics and gynecology were 43% male, 57% female, 68% white, 12% Asian, 8% black, and 5% Hispanic. Across the 12-year period, there was an increase in the total number of physicians from 4755 to 6302 (+166 per year; 95% confidence interval, 146–186; P<.0001), a 15% increase in the proportion of women (+1.38% per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.08%–1.68%; P<.0001), and an increase in the proportion of physicians from racial minorities (Asian, +0.11% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.08–0.15; P<.0001; black, +0.07% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.09; P=.0002; Hispanic, +0.06% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.1; P=.0039). There was a greater proportion of white physicians in higher academic ranks (eg, full professor), leadership positions (eg, chairperson), and tenure than the proportion of white physicians overall, whereas the opposite was true for black and Hispanic physicians. Although women now make up 64% of all academic physicians in obstetrics and gynecology, there remains a far higher proportion of males in leadership positions (chairperson) and higher academic ranks (full professor). Similarly, a greater proportion of males were tenured than females. Conclusion Across the 12-year period, the representation of women and racial minorities has increased in academic obstetrics and gynecology in the United States. There is now a predominance of women, but there remains a trend for a predominance of white and male physicians in higher academic ranks, leadership positions, and tenure. It will be important to assess how these groups are represented in the coming years as the changing demographics of incoming cohorts progress through their careers to more senior positions. Promoting diversity in medical schools, leadership positions, and higher academic ranks may be an important area of focus.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender distribution in emergency medicine journals: editorial board memberships in top-ranked academic journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ravioli, Svenja
    ;
    Rupp, Adrienne
    ;
    Exadaktylos, Aristomenis K.
    ;
    Lindner, Gregor
    Objective  Despite an established gender gap in academic medicine, evidence on gender diversity in emergency medicine is scarce. In the present study, gender distribution of editorial boards and among editors-in-chief of 31 emergency medicine journals was investigated in 2020/2021 and compared to 2015 and 2010. Additionally, gender distribution in editorial boards of emergency medicine journals was compared to editorial boards in five different medical specialties. Methods  In this cross-sectional analysis, gender of editorial board members and editors-in-chief of journals ranked in the Clarivate Analytics ‘Journal Citation Report’ (JCR) of 2019 in the sections ‘Emergency Medicine’, ‘Medicine General and Internal’, ‘Surgery’, ‘Obstetrics and Gynecology’, ‘Pediatrics’ and ‘Orthopedics’ were analyzed. Results  In the investigated 31 emergency medicine journals, three out of 35 editors-in-chief (9%) and 299 out of 1810 editorial board members (17%) were women in 2020/2021. In 2015 and 2010, two editors-in-chief were women (13% vs. 15%). In 2015, 19% of editorial board members were women and in 2010 it was 18%, respectively. There was no significant difference in gender distribution among editors-in-chief and editorial board members comparing 2020/2021 with 2015 and 2010 (P = 0.76 vs. P = 0.40, respectively). There was a lower percentage of women in editorial boards of emergency medicine journals compared to the top five JCR-ranked journals in the categories ‘Medicine General and Internal’, ‘Surgery’, ‘Gynecology and Obstetrics’ and ‘Pediatrics’. Conclusion  The gender gap in editorial boards and among editors-in-chief of emergency medicine journals seems to be consistent for the last 10 years. Gender disparity appears to be substantial in academic emergency medicine: The percentage of women in emergency medicine editorial boards was lower compared to editorial boards of four other medical specialties.