PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9

Sex and Gender Considerations in Orthopaedic Research Open PDF
(Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2024-10-08)
Bechtold, Joan E.
;
Bauer, Thomas W.
;
Clayton, Janine
;
Foucher, Kharma C.
;
Graves, Leland
JBJS convened a symposium to discuss the reporting of sex and gender in research studies as an imperative to improve research methods and results to benefit all patients. Barriers to improved reporting include a lack of societal and cultural acceptance of its need; a lack of education regarding appropriate terminology and appropriate statistical methods and efficient study designs; a need for increased research funding to support larger group sizes; unknown concordance of cell and animal models with humans to reflect biologic variables such as sex; and a lack of understanding of key considerations of gender, race, and other social determinants of health and how these factors intersect. Attention to developing and disseminating best-practice statistical methods and to educating investigators (at all career levels), reviewers, funders, editors, and staff in their proper implementation will aid reporting. Concomitantly, well-designed studies with sufficient rigor and adequate resources are essential to enable meaningful and reproducible research. Existing recommendations, such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, provide valuable guidance that can be applied across the research ecosystem. Academic institutions and private foundations are likely groups to assist in scientific and institutional review board guidance and study recruitment and pilot funding to generate meaningful power estimates, and to serve as sources for additional funding and presentation of workshops, educational events, and seminars. All of this needs to be conducted on an ongoing basis to ensure that sex and gender are considered in scientific analyses, where relevant.
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.
A 46-year analysis of gender trends in academic authorship in orthopaedic sports medicine Open PDF
(2019)
Kim, C.-Y.
;
Sivasundaram, L.
;
Trivedi, N.N.
;
Gilmore, A.
;
Gillespie, R.J.
Introduction:Participation of women in medicine has increased markedly in recent decades, but gender disparities still exist, particularly in academic medicine. To provide insight into the gender gap, specifically in academic orthopaedic sports medicine, we investigated the relationship between gender and authorship in orthopaedic sports literature from 1972 to 2018.Methods:Information about every original article in four prominent orthopaedic sports medicine journals between 1972 and 2018 was extracted from PubMed. The proportions of female first, second, middle, and senior authors over time were determined. Gender influences on level of evidence, academic degrees, and academic productivity and longevity were also studied. Student t-Test, multiple linear regression, chi-square test, Cochran-Armitage trend test, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to determine significance between groups.Results:In our sample, 16.6% of all authors were female. The proportion of female authors increased from 2.6% (1972 to 1979) to 14.7% (2010 to 2018). Female authors averaged fewer publications (1.9 versus 2.8 articles for male authors) and were more likely to be attributed middle authorship (45.9% versus 37.1%) than senior authorship (14.7% versus 22.1%, P < 0.001). Female authors were more likely to be full-Time research staff, such as a PhD (18.2% versus 9.0%, P < 0.001), which correlated with a higher level of evidence (B =-0.162, P < 0.001). Gender differences in academic longevity decreased over decades (1972 to 1989, 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2008), demonstrated by decreasing significance of Kaplan-Meier log-rank tests (<0.01, <0.01, 0.045).Conclusion:Female investigators in orthopaedic sports medicine are authoring publications at a growing rate, increasing almost sevenfold from 1972 to 2018. Although women published two-Thirds the volume of male investigators overall, and were more likely to be full-Time research staff, gender differences in academic productivity and longevity have decreased over time.Level of Evidence:Level III, Retrospective Cohort Design, Observational Study. © 2019 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
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.
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.
Gender Trends in Authorship of Foot and Ankle Academic Literature Over 24 Years Open PDF
(2019)
Vora, M.
;
Kuripla, C.
;
Ouyang, D.
;
Sing, D.C.
Underrepresentation of females in surgery is reflected in research productivity across academic medicine, with male faculty being more likely to publish research than their female counterparts. In this study, we aimed to describe the representation and longevity of female investigators among the authors of articles in 3 foot and ankle research journals from 1993 to 2017. In this retrospective bibliometric analysis, authors from 3 prominent foot and ankle research journals (Foot and Ankle International, The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, and Foot and Ankle Clinics) were identified. The proportion of female authors who were first, middle, and senior authors and the total publication count per author were determined. From 1993 to 2017, 8132 original articles were published and a total of 6597 (81.1%) had an accessible author list. This allowed us to identify 25,329 total authors, of whom 22,961 (90.7%) were successfully matched to a gender. A total of 9273 unique authors were identified (females, 19.2%). Female representation increased for first and senior authors over the years from 6.5% and 5.9% (1993 to 1997) to 16.9% and 13.1% (2013 to 2017, p < .001), respectively. However, compared with male authors, female authors published fewer articles (mean: 1.7 versus 2.4, p < .001). Of the 2691 authors who first published during 2006 to 2011, 369 authors (13%), consisting of 8.1% females and 15% males (p < .001), continued to publish 5 years after their initial publication. Female representation in academic foot and ankle research has increased >2-fold over the past 2 decades. But despite these advances, compared to male authors, female authors are less likely to continue publishing 5 years after initial publication, and on average publish fewer articles. © 2019 the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons
Gender distribution in emergency medicine journals: editorial board memberships in top-ranked academic journals Open PDF
(2021)
Ravioli, Svenja
;
Rupp, Adrienne
;
Exadaktylos, Aristomenis K.
;
Lindner, Gregor
Objective Despite an established gender gap in academic medicine, evidence on gender diversity in emergency medicine is scarce. In the present study, gender distribution of editorial boards and among editors-in-chief of 31 emergency medicine journals was investigated in 2020/2021 and compared to 2015 and 2010. Additionally, gender distribution in editorial boards of emergency medicine journals was compared to editorial boards in five different medical specialties. Methods In this cross-sectional analysis, gender of editorial board members and editors-in-chief of journals ranked in the Clarivate Analytics ‘Journal Citation Report’ (JCR) of 2019 in the sections ‘Emergency Medicine’, ‘Medicine General and Internal’, ‘Surgery’, ‘Obstetrics and Gynecology’, ‘Pediatrics’ and ‘Orthopedics’ were analyzed. Results In the investigated 31 emergency medicine journals, three out of 35 editors-in-chief (9%) and 299 out of 1810 editorial board members (17%) were women in 2020/2021. In 2015 and 2010, two editors-in-chief were women (13% vs. 15%). In 2015, 19% of editorial board members were women and in 2010 it was 18%, respectively. There was no significant difference in gender distribution among editors-in-chief and editorial board members comparing 2020/2021 with 2015 and 2010 (P = 0.76 vs. P = 0.40, respectively). There was a lower percentage of women in editorial boards of emergency medicine journals compared to the top five JCR-ranked journals in the categories ‘Medicine General and Internal’, ‘Surgery’, ‘Gynecology and Obstetrics’ and ‘Pediatrics’. Conclusion The gender gap in editorial boards and among editors-in-chief of emergency medicine journals seems to be consistent for the last 10 years. Gender disparity appears to be substantial in academic emergency medicine: The percentage of women in emergency medicine editorial boards was lower compared to editorial boards of four other medical specialties.
Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity Open PDF
(2018)
Qamar, S.R.
;
Khurshid, K.
;
Jalal, S.
;
Bancroft, L.
;
Munk, P.L.
Introduction: Research productivity is one of the few quintessential gauges that North American academic radiology departments implement to determine career progression. The rationale of this study is to quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and academic advancements in the musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology to account for emerging trends in workforce diversity. Methods: Radiology residency programs enlisted in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) and International Skeletal Society (ISS) were searched for academic faculty to generate the database for gender and academic profiles of MSK radiologists. Bibliometric data was collected using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives, and analyzed using Stata version 14.2. Results: Among 274 MSK radiologists in North America, 190 (69.34%) were men and 84 (30.66%) were women, indicating a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 6.34; p value = 0.042). The available number of female assistant professors (n = 50) was more than half of the male assistant professors (n = 88), this ratio however, plummeted at higher academic ranks, with only one-fourth of women (n = 11) professors compared to men (n = 45). The male MSK radiologist had 1.31 times the odds of having a higher h-index, keeping all other variables constant. Conclusions: The trend of gender disparity exists in MSK radiology with significant underrepresentation of women in top tiers of academic hierarchy. Even with comparable h-indices, at the lower academic ranks, a lesser number of women are promoted relative to their male colleagues. Further studies are needed to investigate the degree of influence research productivity has, in determining academic advancement of MSK radiologists. © 2017, ISS.
Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF
(2020)
Brown, Meghan A.
;
Erdman, Mary Kate
;
Munger, Alana M.
;
Miller, Anna N.
BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results