PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 19

Gender-specific career pathways after postdoctoral qualification in ophthalmology: status quo and influencing factors—A questionnaire survey Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-09-12)
Maier, Anna-Karina B.
;
Liekfeld, Anja
;
Messmer, Elisabeth M.
;
Brücher, Viktoria C.
;
Vandemeulebroecke, Nicola
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Trotz einer steigenden Zahl an Habilitationen in der Ophthalmologie von Frauen, sind Frauen in akademischen Leitungspositionen und bei Professuren weiterhin deutlich unterrepräsentiert. Ziel dieser Studie war es, den aktuellen geschlechterspezifischen Stand der Karrierewege nach der Habilitation in der Augenheilkunde sowie mögliche Einflussfaktoren zu analysieren. Methodik Eine offizielle Umfrage der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft (DOG), die an habilitierte Ophthalmolog*innen versendet wurde, erfolgte von August bis September 2024 auf Initiative des DOG-Arbeitskreises Frauen in der Ophthalmologie. Erhoben wurden Daten zu Alter, Geschlecht, Informationen zu Kindern, Kinderbetreuung, derzeitigem Arbeitsplatz und Gründen für den Verbleib und das Verlassen einer Universitätsklinik oder Forschungseinrichtung als Arbeitgeber. Ergebnisse Insgesamt beteiligten sich 168 von 458 habilitierten Kolleg*innen an der Umfrage (♀: 40 %, ♂: 59 %, keine Angabe: 1 %). Bei 79,8 % der habilitierten männlichen Kollegen lebten Kinder im selben Haushalt, bei Frauen nur in 64,7 % (p = 0,030); 81,8 % der Frauen und 32,9 % der Männer nahmen Elternzeit (p < 0,001); 72,3 % der Frauen und 6,3 % der Männer mit Kindern arbeiteten in Teilzeit (p < 0,001). Bei Vorhandensein einer zweiten Betreuungsperson arbeitet/arbeitete diese bei den männlichen Kollegen zu 58 % in Teilzeit und in 15 % gar nicht, während dies bei den weiblichen Kollegen nur zu 16 % in Teilzeit und zu 2 % gar nicht der Fall war (p < 0,001). Für den Verbleib in der akademischen Laufbahn wurden am häufigsten das Gesamtpaket der Vorteile einer akademischen Laufbahn (♂: 57,4 %, ♀: 64,4 %) und am seltensten finanzielle Anreize (♂: 2,9 %, ♀: 2,2 %) als Gründe angegeben. Diskussion Es besteht bei Habilitierten der Augenheilkunde eine erhebliche Diskrepanz zwischen gleich qualifizierten Männern und Frauen in Bezug auf die Übernahme der Kinderbetreuung. Frauen übernehmen offenbar den Großteil der Kinderbetreuung, was ein Grund dafür sein könnte, dass Habilitandinnen seltener akademische Leitungspositionen einnehmen. Abstract Background Despite an increasing number of women completing postdoctoral qualifications in ophthalmology, women remain significantly underrepresented in academic leadership positions and professorships. The aim of this study was to analyze the current gender-specific status of postdoctoral career paths in ophthalmology and potential influencing factors. Methods An official survey of the German Ophthalmological Society (DOG) was conducted from August to September 2024 at the initiative of the DOG working group on women in ophthalmology. Data were collected on age, gender, information about children, childcare, current employment and reasons for remaining or leaving a university hospital or research institution as an employer. Results A total of 168 of 458 colleagues participated in the survey (♀: 40%, ♂: 59%, no information: 1%). Of the male colleagues 79.8% had children living in the same household, compared to only 64.7% of women (p = 0.030), 81.8% of women and 32.9% of men took parental leave (p < 0.001) and 72.3% of women and 6.3% of men with children worked part-time (p < 0.001). If a second caregiver was present, this caregiver worked part-time in 58% of male colleagues and 15% did not work at all. In female colleagues the second caregiver worked part-time in 16% and 2% did not work at all. The overall package of benefits (♂: 57.4%, ♀: 64.4%) was cited most frequently as a reason for remaining in an academic career, while financial incentives (♂: 2.9%, ♀: 2.2%) were cited least frequently as reasons. Discussion There is a significant discrepancy between equally qualified men and women in ophthalmology regarding childcare responsibilities. Women appear to take on the majority of childcare responsibilities, which could be one reason why females are less likely to achieve academic leadership positions.
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.
Authorship Trends of Women in Retina: A 25-Year Analysis Open PDF
(2023)
Nahar, A.
;
Mahmoudzadeh, R.
;
Rama, M.
;
Soares, R.R.
;
Yonekawa, Y.
Objective: To examine the trends in first and last authorship of women within clinical retina research over the last 25 years. Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: First and last author names were retrieved from original articles published between January 1, 1995, and January 1, 2021, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology (Archives of Ophthalmology), Ophthalmology, and Retina. Methods: The medical subject heading major term “retina” was used in PubMed to filter publications specific to the field of retina. Publications by single authors and collaborative study groups and those classified as comments, letters, and editorials were excluded. First and last author names were obtained, and Gender API was used to assign sex. Names were crosschecked with the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) directory for United States–based authors. Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of male and female first and last authors throughout the study period and the association between first and last authorship gender were assessed. Results: A total of 4142 articles were included. The percentage of women in first and last authorship positions significantly increased from 23% to 37.7% and 14.2% to 24.6%, respectively, over 25 years (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). When the last authors were women, 32.5% of the first authors were women, and when the last authors were men, 27.1% of the first authors were women (P = 0.002). Based on the ASRS 2020 directory, 17% of practicing retina specialists in the United States were women in 2020. For publications in 2020, 28.2% of the first authors and 22.3% of the last authors of retina publications from the United States were women (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Although a disparity in authorship persists in the subspecialties of ophthalmology, this data suggest that retina is a field where the gap is improving. Mentorship by senior female authors is associated with a higher proportion of female first authors. © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology
Trends in Authorship of Articles in Major Ophthalmology Journals by Gender, 2002–2014 Open PDF
(2016)
Mimouni, M.
;
Zayit-Soudry, S.
;
Segal, O.
;
Barak, Y.
;
Nemet, A.Y.
Purpose To evaluate trends in the prevalence of women authors in ophthalmology in recent years. Design Cohort study. Participants Authors listed in publications of 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. Methods Using the PubMed search engine, we conducted an observational study of trends in gender distribution of all authors in 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. In multiauthored articles, the first listed author often is the lead investigator and the last author is the senior author. Therefore, the full names and positions (first, middle, or last) of all authors in every article were collected. A Google-based name identifier was used to assign the gender of authors. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of women authors throughout the study period in all journals, general ophthalmology versus subspecialty journals, and basic science versus clinical research journals. Furthermore, we assessed the proportion of women in different authorship positions (first, middle, and last). Results A total of 102 254 authors from 23 026 published articles were analyzed. There was a significant rise over time in the percentage of women authors, with a steeper slope for first authors than for last authors (P<0.001), although in 2014, women authors were less than the 50% mark in all categories of authorship. The rise in the percentage of women authors was similar in basic and clinical research, but was steeper for first authorship than for last authorship (P<0.001). In all 3 authorship positions (first, middle, or last), women's contributions consistently were higher in basic research publications. The rise in the percentage of women authors was significantly steeper for general journals than for subspecialty journals (P<0.001). There was no significant rise for last authorship in subspecialty journals. In all 3 authorship positions, the proportion of women was consistently higher in general ophthalmology journals than for subspecialty journals. Conclusions Despite an overall increase in the contribution of women to the field of ophthalmology, contributions to articles published in subspecialty ophthalmology journals and the proportion of women listed as last authors on overall articles published in ophthalmology journals are still low. © 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology
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.
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.
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.
Time trends, disease patterns and gender imbalance in the top 100 most cited articles in ophthalmology Open PDF
(2019)
Heng Wong, M.Y.
;
Tan, N.Y.Q.
;
Sabanayagam, C.
We analysed the 100 top cited articles in ophthalmology to identify and characterise the most influential articles of the past four decades. Two independent investigators searched the Scopus database to determine the 100 most frequently cited articles in ophthalmology (T100-Eye) and general non-ophthalmology journals (T100-Gen) published from 1975 to December 2017. The T100-Eye list consisted of 83 original articles and 17 reviews, and the number of citations ranged from 582 to 2833. Seventy-eight of these articles were published in three journals alone (impact factor (IF): 5.05-8.2), led by the Archives of Ophthalmology. The T100-Gen list consisted of 84 original articles and 16 reviews and the number of citations ranged from 358 to 3272. Forty-five of these articles were published in four journals alone (IF: 9.66-72.41). In both lists, majority of the first authors were from the USA (T100-Eye, n=80; T100-Gen, n=66), and were men (n=76 in T100-Eye; n=72 in T100-Gen). With regard to the article type, in the T100-Eye, among the 83 original research articles, most were randomised controlled trials (n=26) or clinical observational studies related to description of a new condition or new management (n=26). In the T100-Gen, of the 84 original research articles, many were clinical observational studies (n=27) or basic science research (n=26). In both lists, the most frequently examined diseases were age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. Our analysis reveals landmark articles, trends and medical advancements in ophthalmology over the past four decades. It also highlights gender disparity and influence of the USA in seminal ophthalmic research. © 2019 Article author(s).
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.
Gender Authorship Trends in the Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature Open PDF
(2022)
Gervasio, Kalla A.
;
Sklar, Bonnie A.
;
Nguyen, Anne X.
;
Wu, Albert Y.
PURPOSE: Despite increasing numbers of women oculoplastic surgeons, they remain underrepresented within the subspecialty. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in gender authorship within the field of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This retrospective observational study sampled articles published in Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (OPRS) and Orbit during the years 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2020. Data reviewed included article type, total number of authors, and the gender of each article's first and senior author. RESULTS: Nine hundred ninety-nine articles were analyzed, including 701 in OPRS and 298 in Orbit. Of 3,716 total authors, 1,151 (31%) were women, including 297 (29.7%) first authors, and 191 (21.5%) senior authors. Women authorship in OPRS in 1985 (first, 3.9%; senior, 3.3%; all, 3.2%) significantly increased by 2020 (first, 44.6%; senior, 27.9%; all, 42%). Women authorship in Orbit in 1985 (first, 0%; senior, 4.5%; all, 7.4%) also significantly increased by 2020 (first, 43.3%; senior, 34%; all, 42.9%). In a subanalysis of OPRS original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 3.1% in 1985 to 35.8% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 4.3% in 1985 to 25% in 2020 (p = 0.001). In a subanalysis of Orbit original investigations alone, women first authorship increased from 0% in 1985 to 65.4% in 2020 (p < 0.001) and women senior authorship increased from 5.3% in 1985 to 42.3% in 2020 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant increase in women authorship over the past several decades, women remain underrepresented within the oculoplastic literature, particularly in regard to senior authorship. When considering original investigations alone, there has been a significant increase in women first and senior authorship in both OPRS and Orbit.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results