PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OphthalmologyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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,
    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.