PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OncologyGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Canada

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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,
    Women's Authorship of Reviews in Ophthalmic Journals over Time Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Gertig, D.
    ;
    Keane, M.C.
    ;
    Matthews, J.M.
    ;
    Williams, K.A.
    ;
    Smith, J.R.
    Purpose:To investigate prevalence and trends in women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals over 2 decades.Design:Literature survey.Methods:Total number of authors, and number and gender of first and senior (last-named) authors, were identified in all full reviews published in Prog Retin Eye Res, Surv Ophthalmol, and Curr Opin Ophthalmol for the calendar years 1999, 2009, and 2019. The gender of authors was assigned manually by multiple methods. The subspecialty area of each review was captured by keyword and text search. Country of origin was determined from attributions of first and senior authors.Results:The gender of 841 first and senior authors was assigned unequivocally for 471 articles (96%). The frequency of women's authorship rose significantly over time (1999, 2009, 2019) for both first authors (19%, 32%, 44%; P < 0.001) and senior authors (16%, 19%, 29%; P = 0.018). The number of single-author reviews decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001), as did the proportion of reviews with neither a first nor a senior woman author (P < 0.001). Women's first authorship increased over time for reviews on glaucoma (P < 0.001), while women's senior authorship increased for anterior segment/cataract (P = 0.036). The proportion of reviews with a woman first or senior author did not differ by country of origin (P = 0.887 and P = 0.520, respectively).Conclusions:Women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals increased significantly over the 20-year period, but a gender disparity remained: in 2019, more than 55% of first authors, and more than 70% of senior authors, were men. © 2021 Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Recent Trends in “Manels” and Gender Representation Among Panelists at North American Annual Radiation Oncology Meetings Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Burgess, Laura
    ;
    Ghosh, Anushka
    ;
    Yeap, Beow Y.
    ;
    Rasheed, Nabeel
    ;
    Ragala, Siri
    Purpose Achieving gender equity in radiation oncology is an important goal, as a smaller proportion of women enter radiation oncology residency compared with those graduating from medical school. As invited speaking opportunities at academic medical conferences are vital for promotion/tenure, we investigated the prevalence of all-men panels (“manels”) at American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and Canadian Society of Radiation Oncology (CARO) annual meetings. Methods and Materials Using ASTRO and CARO online meeting programs, 2018 to 2021 faculty information was obtained, including gender, panel role (chair vs nonchair), type of session, and topic. Primary outcomes included percentage of manels and proportion of female panelists over time. Representation of women among chairs was also evaluated. Results Over the 4-year study period across both conferences, a total of 765 panel sessions were held with 2973 faculty members, of whom 1287 (43.3%) were women. Of these sessions, 127 of 765 (16.6%) were manels. ASTRO meetings had 1169 of 2742 (42.6%) female faculty members and held 107 of 680 (15.7%) manels, whereas CARO meetings had 118 of 231 (51.1%) female faculty and held 20 of 85 manels (23.5%). From 2018 to 2021, the proportion of manels decreased at ASTRO and CARO meetings from 25.6% to 8.2% (P < .001) and from 29.6% to 15.0% (P = .130), respectively. The role of chair was majority male in every year from 2018 to 2021 at ASTRO meetings (58.6% overall), but more balanced at CARO meetings (48.0% overall). Among session types, the highest proportion of manels was observed for scientific sessions (19.1%, P = .011) at ASTRO meetings and leadership sessions (29.4%, P = .533) at CARO meetings. The lowest proportion of female panelists was on genitourinary cancer topics at ASTRO meetings (31.9%, P = .018) and physics topics at CARO meetings (40.4%, P = .085). Conclusions During the study period, the proportion of female panelists increased with a corresponding decrease in manels. ASTRO and CARO should strive for further involvement of women and the elimination of manels whenever possible.