PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22

Network Analysis of Women in Otolaryngology and Demographic Trends Open PDF
(Wiley, 2024-09-25)
Cheng, Tracy Z.
;
Reddy, Pooja D.
;
Robertson, Dawn C.
;
Magaña, Linda C.
;
Gardiner, Lauren A.
Objective This study analyzes gender disparities between men and women otolaryngology faculty in the top 20 otolaryngology departments ranked by research output and discusses the implications of these disparities. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study of all articles published by faculty from January 2020 to December 2021 at the top 20 otolaryngology departments as ranked by Doximity's 2022 research output report. Integrated data from Web of Science, faculty directories, and NIH RePORT were used to collect data on faculty. Social network analysis was performed using ORA‐LITE. Student's and Welch's t‐tests and Pearson chi‐squared tests were used to evaluate gender differences in academic metrics. Results The findings revealed significant gender disparities, with men holding higher academic positions (men = 3.16, women = 2.69, p < 0.0001), higher H‐indices (22.4, 13.8, p < 0.0001), more NIH grants (0.15, 0.07, p = 0.0032), and greater total degree centrality (3.98E‐4, 2.4E‐4, p < 0.0001) and betweenness centrality (4.47E‐3, 3.00E‐3, p = 0.0021). Men also had more publications (9.8, 6.8, p < 0.0001) with more distinct co‐authors, both within (4, 3.1, p = 0.0074) and across (38.1, 25.8, p < 0.0001) institutions. Disparities persisted after accounting for career length. Notably, total degree centrality differences between men and women were statistically significant from 1991 to 2017 (p < 0.0001), but not from 2018 to 2022 (p = 0.83). Conclusions This study highlights gender inequities in otolaryngology, encouraging mentors to foster new collaborations with female peers. Importantly, it identifies a trend toward narrowing the gender gap within the specialty, particularly over the past 5 years, emphasizing the need to sustain these positive changes for enhanced gender equity. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 135:1039–1045, 2025
Representation of Women Authors in the 100 Most‐Cited Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Articles Open PDF
(Wiley, 2025-02-25)
Fleischer, Lindsay
;
Ahn, Yoo Jin
;
Urban, Matthew J.
;
Revenaugh, Peter C.
;
Smith, Ryan M.
Objective This study aims to determine the representation of women among most‐cited facial plastic and reconstructive surgery articles. Study Design A bibliometric analysis of the most‐cited articles from 9 high‐impact facial plastic surgery journals. Setting Online database. Methods A retrospective analysis of the 100 most‐cited articles in facial plastic surgery was conducted using the Elsevier Scopus database. The representation of women among first, senior, and corresponding authors was assessed using the US Social Security Baby Names Database. Accredited websites were utilized for further clarification of gender, professional background, and title. A 2‐tailed t‐test was performed to compare the average number of citations by gender, while chi‐square analysis was used to compare the relative number of women authors between 5‐year intervals, citation rank, and nationalities. A significance level of 0.05 was used. Results The top 100 most‐cited articles had the highest total number of citations between 2000 and 2004. US institutions published 71% of these articles. The gender of 99% of first authors, 94% of senior authors, and 94% of corresponding authors was identified. Among these, 11% of first authors, 14% of senior authors, and 10% of corresponding authors were women. Of the 19 women authors, 11 were physicians. No statistically significant difference in the relative number of first, senior, and corresponding women authors was observed between years of publication, citation quartile, and article nationality. Conclusion Despite increasing women facial plastic surgery trainees, women's academic contributions continue to trail. Additional efforts are needed to support and highlight academic achievements of women facial plastic surgeons.
Is the gender gap closing in otolaryngology subspecialties? An analysis of research productivity Open PDF
(2020)
Okafor, S.
;
Tibbetts, K.
;
Shah, G.
;
Tillman, B.
;
Agan, A.
Objective: The proportion of women specializing in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (Oto–HNS) and seeking fellowship training has steadily increased over the last several years. In academic Oto–HNS, gender differences exist in research productivity, scholarly impact, and funding. This study aims to evaluate gender differences in academic productivity between otolaryngologists in early, mid-, and later careers stages and within various subspecialties. Methods: Departmental websites for all Oto–HNS residency programs were accessed, and data including gender, academic rank, and fellowship training/subspecialty field was collected. Bibliometric data including h-index, publication years, number of citations, documents, and coauthors was obtained from the Scopus database. Career groups were defined as early (1–5 years), mid- (6–15 years), and later (16+ years). Continuous data was compared using the t test. Results: Data was collected on 1,754 academic otolaryngologists (412 women, 1,342 men). Overall, men exhibited significantly higher h-indices, number of documents, citations, and coauthors and actively published for more years compared to women (P < 0.0001 for all variables). Similar trends persisted across all subspecialties. When authors were broken down into career groups, women and men showed similar research productivity across all career groups in the subspecialties of otology, facial plastics, and rhinology; however, in head and neck, laryngology, and pediatrics, women continued to lag behind men. Conclusion: This study suggests that female otolaryngologists within certain subspecialties are keeping pace with their male counterparts in publication productivity in the early career time frame. This represents a change from prior studies which have shown women to be less productive in the early career period. Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 130:1144–1150, 2020. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Female Authorship of Opinion Pieces in Leading Otolaryngology Journals between 2013 and 2018 Open PDF
(2020)
Miller, A.L.
;
Rathi, V.K.
;
Gray, S.T.
;
Bergmark, R.W.
Although women represent an increasing proportion of the physician workforce, barriers to the professional advancement of women persist, particularly within surgical fields such as otolaryngology. Authorship of scientific opinion articles serves as an important opportunity for professional development. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to characterize the authorship patterns of scientific opinion articles by gender in leading otolaryngology journals between 2013 and 2018. Outcome measures were the number and proportion of female physician first authors and female last authors as compared with the proportion of the otolaryngology workforce. Between 2013 and 2018, female authors accounted for 24.1% of first of multiple authors, 30.4% of sole authors, and 25.3% of last authors. Women were equitably represented in comparison with the proportion of practicing female otolaryngologists (17.1% in 2017). The proportion of female first authorship increased from 20.0% in 2013 to 32.0% in 2018. Additional efforts are necessary to support the equitable advancement of women in otolaryngology. © American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2019.
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.
Sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research Open PDF
(2019)
Liang, Jennifer J.
;
Belcastro, Alexandra
;
Levi, Jessica
Objectives/Hypothesis To characterize the sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research. Study Design Published research data analysis. Methods The total number of male and female participants, study characteristics, and sex data handling were abstracted from all original studies containing human participants published in five major otolaryngology journals from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Results Of the 1,128 studies from 2016 included in the analysis, 88.5% specified the sex of participants. There were 3,605,636 (42.1%) men and 4,515,508 (52.8%) women, with 429,006 (5.0%) participants unspecified. However, the average proportions of male and female participants (wherein studies are weighted the same, regardless of number of participants) were 0.579 and 0.421, respectively. Studies from the United States had a significantly higher proportion of women than studies from outside the United States. Subspecialties varied significantly in proportions. Average sex proportions in 2016 remained similar to those in 2006. For all studies, fewer than 40% of studies used any sex data for reporting of outcomes, for any sex-related analysis, or for discussion of results. Conclusions There was a higher average proportion of male participants than female. Studies originating in the United States included a greater number of female participants than those originating elsewhere, a possible result of explicit sex-inclusion policies governing research in the United States. Inclusion of women did not changed from 2006 to 2016, but analysis of sex data improved. Improvement of reporting, analysis, and discussion with regard to sex would benefit otolaryngology research and improve treatment for both sexes. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:E420–E427, 2019
Gender Disparity in Non-ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) Otolaryngology Fellowship Leadership Open PDF
(2024)
Leyden, Kara
;
Soeder, Mason
;
Holdaway, Matthew
;
Scagnelli, Robert
;
Mortensen, Melissa
OBJECTIVE: Women are underrepresented among practicing otolaryngology physicians with increasing disparities in leadership roles and higher levels of professional attainment in academic medicine. The purpose of this study is to determine the gender gap among fellowship directors within specific otolaryngology subspecialties, and how this compares to disparities among all academic appointments held by otolaryngologists. Additionally, we seek to better understand how years practiced, H-index, professorship status, and academic productivity differ between men and women in fellowship director roles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. Publicly available data from non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships was collected from department websites and Doximity including gender, years of practice, and professor status of fellowship directors. Scopus was used to find H-index for identified fellowship directors. Fisher's Exact tests were used to determine if significant gender disparity existed between each fellowship and academic otolaryngology as whole. H-index and years of practice were plotted for men and women comparing the slope of lines of best fit as a measure of academic productivity. SETTING: Non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships in the US. PARTICIPANTS: Fellowship directors in non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships. RESULTS: Among 174 fellowship positions in our analysis, head and neck (17.3% women), laryngology (17.2% women), rhinology (5.7% women), and facial plastics (8.1% women) had significantly lower overall women representation compared to academic otolaryngology (36.6% women) (p < 0.05). As fellowship directors, women were significantly more productive than men given years practiced and H-index (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities among otolaryngologists are amplified in the role of fellowship directors compared to broader academic otolaryngology. This is true despite women in these roles demonstrating higher academic productivity.
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.
Female and low- and middle-income authorship trends in high-impact ENT journals (2011-2020) Open PDF
(2023)
Jashek-Ahmed, Farizeh
;
Daudu, Davina
;
Heer, Baveena
;
Ali, Hawa
;
Wiedermann, Joshua
INTRODUCTION: Despite a recent drive to increase diversity, the global academic workforce is skewed in favor of authors from high-income countries, and women are under-represented in the published medical literature. OBJECTIVES: To explore the trends in authorship of three high-impact otolaryngology journals over a ten-year period (2011-2020). METHODS: Journals selected: JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope and Rhinology. Articles were reviewed from four issues per journal per year, and data was collected on: time of publication; subspeciality; number of authors; sex of first and last authors; country of practice of first author and country where each study was conducted. Trends were examined though univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 2998 articles were included. 93.9% of first authors and 94.2% of studies were from high-income countries.Women were first authors in 31.5% (n = 912) and senior authors in 18.4% (n = 524) of articles. Female first authorship significantly increased between 2011 and 2020 however female senior authorship remained the same. There have been no significant changes in the proportion of published articles from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) over time (p = .65). Amongst the LMIC articles, 72% came from Brazil, Turkey or China and there were no published papers from countries with a low-income economy (gross national income per capita of $1085 or less). CONCLUSIONS: Although female first authorship has increased in the last decade, there has been minimal other demographic change in authorship over this time. High-impact otolaryngology journals poorly represent academia in low-and-middle income countries. There is a need for increased advocacy promoting gender and geographical research equity in academic medicine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results