PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mathur, Ambika
    ;
    Cano, Annmarie
    ;
    Kohl, Michael
    ;
    Muthunayake, Nisansala S.
    ;
    Vaidyanathan, Prassanna
    It has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.
  • 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,
    Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sketris, I.S.
    ;
    Traynor, R.L.
    ;
    Helwig, M.
    ;
    Burland, E.
    ;
    Stewart, S.A.
    Purpose: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them. Methods: CNODES articles (published 2012–2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to “indeterminate.” T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature. Results: Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles. Conclusions: This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    An Update on the Progress Toward Gender Equity in US Academic Pharmacy Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Draugalis, JoLaine R.
    ;
    Medina, Melissa S.
    ;
    Taylor, Jamie N.
    ;
    Plaza, Cecilia M.
    ;
    Lopez, Estela J.
    Objective. To evaluate the status of gender equity in US pharmacy education since the two previous publications on the topic in 2004 and 2014.Methods. Data were gathered from existing national databases, internal American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) databases, AACP meeting minutes, published reports, scholarly articles, pharmacy association websites, individual school websites, and LinkedIn profiles. Differences between men and women were evaluated on degree completion, discipline, rank, tenure status, research, leadership development, leadership positions, salaries, and professional awards. Comparisons were also made to academic medicine and dentistry.Results. Fifty-one percent of full-time faculty members across all academic pharmacy disciplines are women. The percentage of women at the rank of professor was 36.6%, compared to 25% in 2014. Of the 2992 tenured or tenure track pharmacy faculty, 39.2% were women. Out of 388 department chairs, 146 were women. Throughout 2014-2021, there were 121 chief executive officer (CEO) dean permanent appointments, with men holding 91 (75.2%) and women holding 30 (24.8%). Women received 29.7% of the National Institutes of Health grants awarded to pharmacy schools compared to men (70.3%), although women's funding amount was higher. In both the pharmacy practice discipline and all sciences disciplines, the total salary across all ranks and years in rank was significantly higher for men than women, even for department chairs, but there were no differences for CEO deans. To date, women have received 13% of four national pharmacy organizations' top 13 awards.Conclusion. Since 2014, some achievement gaps have narrowed, but areas of concern still exist and need continued attention and resources so inequities can be eliminated. Women in academic pharmacy need mentoring and support to extend throughout the trajectory of their careers in areas such as academic advancement, grant applications, salary negotiation, leadership pursuit, and award applications.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Seeking Gender Equity in Pharmacy Academia
    (2023)
    Devraj, R
    ;
    Warholak, T
    ;
    Planas, LG
    Gender inequity is a critical diversity, equity, and inclusion issue that has continued to lead to workplace disparities. While gender-based differences in pay are well documented, there are multiple other facets of academic worklife (eg, teaching, research, service, resources, etc) wherein gender inequities exist but have never been systematically identified or reported. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these inequities. One reason for continued existence of gender disparities in the workplace is lack of focused attention and emphasis on this issue. A recently formed Gender Equity Task Force has taken the first steps to systematically explore gender inequity in all areas of academic pharmacy worklife. The purpose of this Commentary is to highlight the scope of the problem of gender inequity in pharmacy academia and offer solutions that the Academy can implement to mitigate the impact of gender inequity in the future.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Improving Equity for Women in Pharmacy Academia Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Bond, Rucha
    ;
    Hammer, Dana
    ;
    Van Tassell, Benjamin
    Previous studies have identified that gender inequities exist in pharmacy academia. The inequities that women in academic pharmacy face are lower job satisfaction, ability to achieve higher ranks in faculty and administration, and salary. To date, considerations of why these inequities exist and what measures can be taken to address them remain relatively unexplored. This Commentary explores possible causes of gender inequities in pharmacy academia and potential solutions to improve equity between women and men. Potential causes include underlying sexism that still exists in society and academia today, promotion and tenure and the tenure clock, the concept of overwork, and the impact of the role of motherhood on female faculty. Suggestions to help improve gender inequity include both structural and cultural changes to the pharmacy academic environment.