PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 26

Bridging the gender gap in surgical oncology: Insights from the ESSO membership survey on diversity, equity, and inclusion Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-03)
Orme, S.E.
;
SantraČ, N.
;
Lorenzon, L.
;
Rubio, I.T.
;
Schrage, Y.M.
Abstract Introduction: Despite increasing numbers of women entering medicine, they remain underrepresented in surgical specialties, particularly in leadership and academic roles. This study explored gender differences in perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) among members of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and identified areas where DEI policies may better support female surgeons. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to ESSO members in 2025. Quantitative items assessed demographics and perceptions of DEI within respondents' organisations and ESSO. Gender differences were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U tests and binomial logistic regression adjusted for age and ethnicity. Open-text responses were analysed thematically to identify perceived barriers and priorities for improvement. Results: A total of 279 members responded (37% women). Women were less likely than men to perceive recruitment as unbiased (53% vs 17% disagreed, p < 0.001) or to believe that equal opportunities for advancement exist (43% vs 19% disagreed, p < 0.001). Nearly 40% of women reported their identity had negatively impacted career progression compared with 8% of men (p < 0.001). Women were more likely to prioritise greater representation of women in leadership and faculty roles (OR 8.58, 95% CI 4.73-15.57, p < 0.001), development of work-life balance guidelines (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.44-4.10, p < 0.001), and commitment to gender diversity in leadership and committees (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.02-2.94, p = 0.041). Conclusion: Female surgeons continue to face inequities in surgical oncology. ESSO and similar societies have a critical role in promoting transparent recruitment, inclusive leadership, and equitable professional development to advance gender equity and excellence in cancer care.
Confronting inequality: The Stark disparity of female representation in surgical oncology journals’ editorial boards Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-02)
Feres, Brenda
;
Viana, Sofia Wagemaker
;
Lech, Gabriele Eckerdt
;
Da Cruz, Yasmin Biscola
;
Möller, Mecker G.
Background Inequitable representation on journal editorial boards (EB) may hinder females' career advancement in leadership positions. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study analyzing gender representation in EB of surgical oncology journals. Members were classified as “editor-in-chief”, “senior editorial leadership”, “board and advisory members”, and “editorial management and support”, with first names used to predict female representation. Results We included 24 surgical oncology journals and analyzed 2097 names. Females held 33.1 % (694/2097) of EB positions (p < 0.001). A chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference in gender representation across editorial roles (p < 0.001). Females held fewer editor-in-chief roles (17.9 %, 5/28) compared to board and advisory members (30.1 %, 473/1574). Overall, 4/24 journals had a statement about diversity/equity on the EB, despite none showing equal proportion. Conclusion Female surgeons remain underrepresented in leadership positions, underscoring the need to improve equity and females’ advancement.
Gender differences in publication rates in oncology: Looking at the past, present, and future Open PDF
(Wiley, 2020-03-25)
Duma, Narjust
Female physicians and scientists represent less than one third of first and senior authors in oncology journals. Equal opportunities and training in gender bias are necessary to level out the playing field for current and future female physicians and scientists.
Academic Surgical Oncologists’ Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation Open PDF
(2018)
Nguyen, V.
;
Marmor, R.A.
;
Ramamoorthy, S.L.
;
Blair, S.L.
;
Clary, B.M.
Background: A scholar’s h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. Results: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). Conclusions: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers. © 2018, Society of Surgical Oncology.
Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF
(2018)
Mathur, Ambika
;
Cano, Annmarie
;
Kohl, Michael
;
Muthunayake, Nisansala S.
;
Vaidyanathan, Prassanna
It has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.
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.
Gender imbalance in gynecologic oncology authorship and impact of COVID-19 pandemic Open PDF
(2022)
Mah, S.J.
;
Makkar, M.
;
Huang, K.
;
Anpalagan, T.
;
Reade, C.J.
Objective Despite increased participation of women in academic medicine in recent decades, gender disparities persist. The gender gap in authorship and editorial boards in gynecologic oncology, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been recently evaluated. We examined gender representation and the impact of COVID-19 on authorship and editorial boards of two major peer-reviewed gynecologic oncology journals. Methods We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original articles published in Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, comparing the most contemporary 5-year period (2016-2020) to single years in the two prior decades (1996, 2006). To assess the early impact of COVID-19, we compared publications from May 2020-April 2021 to 2019. Editorial boards were analyzed for gender composition. First names, pronouns, and institutional photographs were used to determine gender. Results There were 3022 original articles published between 2016 and 2020, 763 in 2006, and 203 in 1996. Gender was identified for 91.3% of first authors (3641 articles) and 95.6% of senior authors (3813 articles). Men comprised the majority of the editorial boards in 2021 at 57% and 61% for Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, respectively. Men were overrepresented as senior authors across all study periods: 93% in 1996, 77% in 2006, and 58% in 2016-2020. Over time, representation of women as first and senior authors increased (7% in 1996, 42% in 2016-2020, p<0.00001). There was no immediate impact of the early pandemic on gender distribution of authorship. Conclusions Despite greater representation of women over time as authors in gynecologic oncology journals, there remains gender disparity in senior authorship and editorial board representation. This presents an opportunity for the academic publishing community to advocate for deliberate strategies to achieve gender parity. Although no impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic was found, this requires ongoing surveillance. ©
THE GENDER IMBALANCE IN GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY AUTHORSHIP AND EDITORIAL BOARDS
(2021)
Mah, SJ
;
Makkar, M
;
Anpalagan, T
;
Huang, K
;
Reade, C
Objectives Despite increased participation of women in Medicine in recent decades, there remains gender disparity in Academic Medicine. Our objective was to examine gender diversity in authorship and editorial boards of 2 prominent peer-reviewed Gynecologic Oncology journals. Methods We performed a bibliometric analysis of original articles published in Gynecologic Oncology(GO) and International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer(IJGC), comparing 2016–2020 to two decades prior (1996). First names and photographs from institutional websites were used to identify subjective gender. Gender distribution was compared using chi-square tests. Results We included 3022 original articles between 2006–2020, and 201 in 1996. Gender was identified for 93% of first and 94.5% of senior(last) authors. Trends of gender representation in authorship and editorial boards over time are presented in the graphs below. Men were overrepresented as senior authors across both study periods: 93% in 1996, and 58% in 2016–2020. Over time, representation of women as senior authors increased(7% in 1996, 42% in 2016–2020, p<0.00001). This trend was also observed in first authorship(9% in 1996, 57% in 2016–2020, p<0.00001). Men continued to comprise the majority of editorial board members (86% in 1996, 59% in 2020). • Download figure • Open in new tab • Download powerpoint Abstract EPV246/#242 Figure 1 Conclusions There is an encouraging trend in female authorship, likely reflective of increased representation in the workforce. Nevertheless, gender disparity persists. This underlines an opportunity for the academic publishing community to participate in advocacy and decisive action to close the ‘gender gap’. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this publication gap is being assessed by our group.
Gender Disparities in Presentations at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Meetings From 2014 to 2019 Open PDF
(2022)
Lyu, Heather G.
;
Lu, Pamela
;
Mahvi, David A.
;
Kuo, Lindsay E. Y.
;
Wong, Sandra L.
BACKGROUND: Participation in surgical society meetings serves as a proxy for academic success and is important for career development. This study aimed to investigate and report the gender breakdown of presenters at recent Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meetings. METHODS: Genders of presenters for poster, parallel, plenary, and video sessions at SSO meetings from 2014 through 2019 were collected. These data were broken down to first-last authorship relationships including female-female, female-male, male-female, and male-male. The proportions of female-to-male presenters were compared for each session type. Statistical significance was set at p value lower than 0.05. RESULTS: From 2014 through 2019, the SSO had 2920 presenters, and 47% were female. Women were listed as first authors more often for the poster session (48%) than for other sessions (parallel, plenary, and video) (p = 0.003). Women also were listed more often as senior authors for the poster session (31%) than for other sessions (p = 0.004). Female senior authors were fewer than male senior authors across all session types. Female first authors had the highest representation in breast (75%), endocrine (48%), and cutaneous (46%) specialties (p < 0.001). The most common combination of first and senior authors was male-male (43%), followed by female-male (28%), female-female (19%), and male-female (10%). CONCLUSION: Overall, female presentation at SSO is comparable with society demographics, and female first authorship is relatively equal to male first authorship in poster sessions. Whereas female first authorship improved over time, female senior authorship remained relatively flat. Opportunities to improve gender equality in senior authorship positions should be explored.
A 20-year analysis of gender trends in oncology authorship in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews Open PDF
(2024)
Levy, M.S.
;
Samarakoon, T.
;
Smith, C.
;
Goo, I.
;
Duthely, L.M.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate global longitudinal publication trends in oncology in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) from 2001-2020. Design: Retrospective bibliometric analysis. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome measures were the numbers and percentages of women as first, last, and corresponding author across all CDSR oncology publications. Additional outcomes included authorship differences between countries and percentages of women authors over time compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Results: In total, 548 articles were analyzed. Women were first authors in 52.26% (n=277) and corresponding authors in 50.75% (n=272), respectively. Women represented only 39.4% (n=210) of last authors, significantly less frequent than male counterparts (p < 0.001). The percentage of women last and corresponding authors has increased significantly in the past 20 years (p < 0.05). Countries such as the Netherlands and Australia consistently showed equitable representation in first, corresponding, and last authorship, while other countries such as Italy and China had uniformly low rates of female authorship. Coclusions: Our results highlight patterns of gender inequity in oncology publication authorship in the CDSR from 2001-2020 at a global level. Notably, women were less likely to serve in the last author position which, independent of assigned corresponding authorship, is generally assumed in academic oncology to designate the leader of a published study. Substantive efforts to correct this disparity are needed to achieve gender parity in publicly perceived leadership in oncology publications. Copyright © 2024 Levy, Samarakoon, Smith, Goo, Duthely, Van Zuilen, Huang and Pillai.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results