PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OphthalmologyGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Progress toward gender equity in leadership and representation in academic pediatric ophthalmology Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-10)
    Bicknell, Brenton T.
    ;
    Rudd Zhong Manis, Josephine
    ;
    Chishom, Haley
    ;
    Heo, Yejin
    ;
    Dzubinski, Lance
    BACKGROUND: Gender representation in academic pediatric ophthalmology has shifted significantly in recent decades, with increasing female participation. This study examines academic rank, leadership roles, and research productivity as a function of gender. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed publicly available data from 126 US academic ophthalmology programs listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) during August 2024. Data collected from institutional websites identified 451 fellowship-trained pediatric ophthalmologists. Variables included gender, fellowship graduation year, academic rank, leadership roles (eg, department chair, fellowship director, program director), and research productivity metrics (publications, citations, h-index). Statistical comparisons used Pearson's χ2 test, the Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U or t tests, where appropriate, with significance defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Women now account for 55.9% (252/451) of academic pediatric ophthalmologists. Among those who completed fellowships before 2000, males constitute a larger proportion than females (69.7% vs 30.3%); since 2000, females comprise a greater share of fellowship graduates (65.3% vs 34.7% [P < 0.01]). Men more frequently serve as full professors (40.9% vs 18.0%, P <0.01]) and department chairs (6.5% vs 2.0% [P = 0.02]; women, more often as assistant professors (54.5% vs 40.1% [P = 0.01]) and program directors (3.6% vs 0.5% [P = 0.03]). Research productivity and academic rank are similar between genders in post-2000 graduates. CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities persist in senior roles, but recent cohorts of currently practicing faculty demonstrate similar levels of academic rank and research productivity. Women now account for 55.9% of academic pediatric ophthalmologists and 65.3% of post-2000 graduates.
  • 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,
    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,
    Academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology power list Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Shemesh, Rachel
    ;
    Tiosano, Alon
    ;
    Barayev, Edward
    ;
    Zloczower, Elchanan
    ;
    Gershoni, Assaf
    OBJECTIVE: To review the academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology '2020 Power List'. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the academic profiles, achievements, and bibliometric profiles of all ophthalmologists listed in the 'Power List of 2020', regarded as the most influential figures in ophthalmology today, were analysed. RESULTS: Ninety-five ophthalmologists were studied, after excluding 10 non-ophthalmologist figures that are also listed. Their mean age is 63 ± 11.7 years, with a strong male predominance (84.2%, n = 80 males, P < 0.001). All have a medical doctorate degree, and 31% (n = 29) have a Philosophy Doctor (PhD) degree. Fifty-three percent (n = 51) are graduates of medical schools in the United States (US). However, non-US ophthalmologists have a higher percentage of PhD degrees (41%, 18/44) vs. US ophthalmologists (22%, 11/51, P = 0.069), and also a longer duration of post-residency training (5.8 ± 3.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 years, P < 0.001). The most common subspecialty was cataract and anterior segment surgery (42%, n = 40). The mean and standard deviation of the total number of papers published by ophthalmologists were 307.4 ± 226.3, with a mean citation record of 11,835.7 ± 13,330.5, and a mean h-index of 46.9 ± 27.9. CONCLUSIONS: The ophthalmologists listed on the 'Power List of 2020' are leaders with high accomplishments and an established interest in research evidenced by a high record of publications and an exceptional bibliometric profile. The list contains more US figures with a gender disparity, demonstrating a greater difficulty for international ophthalmologists, especially women, in achieving this high level of recognition.
  • 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,
    Gender disparities among United States academic pediatric ophthalmologists: an analysis of publication productivity, academic rank, and NIH funding Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Camacci, M.L.
    ;
    Ikpoh, B.
    ;
    Lehman, E.B.
    ;
    Bowie, E.
    ;
    Scott, I.U.
    Purpose: To investigate gender disparitie among pediatric ophthalmologists in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis of pediatric ophthalmologists at 113 US academic programs, data on gender, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites between January 2019 and March 2019. The Scopus database was used to calculate h-indices and m-quotients. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to determine NIH funding. Results: We identified 389 pediatric ophthalmologists: 194 women (49.9%) and 195 men (50.1%). A binomial logistic regression model, which included career length as an independent variable, showed proportions of women to men were similar across all academic ranks (assistant professor, 64.4% vs 46.2% [P = 0.738]; associate professor, 21.7% vs 19.0% [P = 0.357]; full professor, 13.9 vs 34.9% [P = 0.119]). Women had a lower median h-index (5.0 vs 8.0 [P = 0.008]) and a shorter median career duration (12.5 vs 25.0 years [P < 0.001]), but a similar median m-quotient (0.5 vs. 0.5; P = 0.525). Among pediatric ophthalmologists who received NIH funding (20 women vs. 27 men; P = 0.826), the overall median grant-funding total for women was $804K (interquartile range (IQR) 5.0M, mean $3.8M) compared to men, $2.2M (IQR, 4.0M; mean, $3.7M; P = 0.328). Conclusions: The shorter career duration for women likely contributes to the difference in overall h-indices between genders, as m-quotients were similar. The m-quotient should be used over the h-index when comparing academic productivity across genders when disparities in career length exist. © 2020 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Female Authorship in Cornea from 2007 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Amarasekera, D.C.
    ;
    Lam, S.S.
    ;
    Rapuano, C.J.
    ;
    Syed, Z.A.
    Purpose: To identify female authorship trends in first author and last author positions in Cornea from 2007 to 2019.Methods: First and last authors of all Clinical Science and Basic Investigation publications in Cornea over 13 years were sorted by sex. Identification of sex was based on the author's institutional profile or a Google-based name identifier in cases of equivocal names. The proportion of female board-certified ophthalmologists between 2007 and 2019 was collected from the American Board of Ophthalmology total roster of certified diplomats.Results:First and last author sexes were collected from 2313 publications (1837 Clinical Science and 476 Basic Investigation). Between 2007 and 2019, the percentage of female first authors increased from 30.5% to 41.5%, although this change was not significant (P = 0.240). Female last author percentage increased significantly from 14.9% to 26.6% (P = 0.016). The percentage of female American Board of Ophthalmology-certified diplomats also increased significantly from 17.4% to 24.5% (P < 0.001). Similarly, when comparing 2007 and 2008 with 2018 and 2019, we noted a significant increase in the proportion of women in the last author (P < 0.001) but not in the first author (P = 0.208) position. We also identified a significantly higher proportion of female first authors than that of female board-certified ophthalmologists (P < 0.001). Finally, there was a strong association between first author sex and last author sex (P < 0.001) across manuscripts.Conclusions:The proportion of women in last author positions increased over 13 years among manuscripts in Cornea. Despite these advances in academic female representation within the cornea subspecialty, a gender gap in authorship persists. © 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of Sex Diversity Trends Among Ophthalmology Match Applicants, Residents, and Clinical Faculty Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Aguwa, Ugochi T.
    ;
    Srikumaran, Divya
    ;
    Green, Laura K.
    ;
    Potts, John R.
    ;
    Canner, Joseph
    IMPORTANCE: The proportion of women in the field of ophthalmology in the US trails the proportion of women in the general population. Sex diversity trends have been studied in other specialties, but there is a dearth of such literature in ophthalmology. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in the proportion of female ophthalmology match applicants, residents, and clinical faculty. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined data from the San Francisco Match, the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. Data from ophthalmology match applicants, residents, clinical faculty at US medical schools, and AAO members were collected. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of female applicants, residents, and medical school clinical faculty in ophthalmology. RESULTS: Data were obtained from a total of 2807 ophthalmology applicants (35.3% female), 1 004 563 residents (43.8% female), 463 079 clinical faculty members (42.5% female), and 78 968 AAO members (26.1% female). Male ophthalmology residency applicants outnumbered female applicants by a ratio of 1.6:1 from 2016 to 2019. The percentage of female matched applicants in 2016 (41% [168/406]) and 2019 (42% [184/436]) differed by 1% (percent change, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.12 to 3.1; P = .36). There was a 2.3% increase (percent change, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24-0.43; P < .001) in the percentage of female residents across all surgical specialties from 2011 (39.7% [8710/21 985]) to 2019 (42% [10 951/26 082]) but a 2.5% decrease (percent change, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.06; P = .02) in the percentage of female residents in ophthalmology from 2011 (41.5% [589/1419]) to 2019 (39% [575/1473]). The percentage of female ophthalmology clinical faculty differed by 2% (percent change, 1.02; 95% CI, -0.21 to 2.24; P = .10) from 2017 (38% [1179/3102]) to 2019 (40% [1225/3060]). From 2016 to 2019, male practicing ophthalmologists in the AAO outnumbered female practicing ophthalmologists by a ratio of 3:1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that the percentage of women in the field of ophthalmology remains lower than percentages in other specialties, and the percentage of female ophthalmology residents has decreased in recent years. More efforts are needed to improve female representation in ophthalmology.