PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22

Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2024-03)
Cayón Somacarrera, S.
;
Alonso Rodríguez, C.
;
del Campo del Val, L.
;
Oleaga Zufiría, L.
;
Rodríguez Carnero, P.
Abstract Introduction There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States. Materials and methods We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments. Results The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM’s history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%. Conclusions Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality. Resumen Introducción Existen desigualdades por razón de género en todos los ámbitos, incluyendo en la radiología. Aunque la situación está mejorando, la presencia de radiólogas en puestos de liderazgo continúa siendo minoritaria. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la situación de la mujer en la radiología española, comparándola con Europa y EE.UU. Materiales y métodos Seleccionamos como franja de referencia los años 2000–2022 para hacer una comparación con datos de feminización a lo largo de la historia. Además también se incluyeron datos puntuales relevantes del recién comenzado 2023. Las variables en las que investigamos la feminización fueron las siguientes: estudiantes de medicina, médicos graduados, residentes y especialistas en radiodiagnóstico, jefes de sección, jefes de servicio, tutores de residentes de radiodiagnóstico, radiólogos profesores universitarios, presidentes de las principales entidades y sociedades radiológicas de España, Europa y EE.UU, receptores de los principales galardones de dichas sociedades radiológicas y editores jefe de sus revistas. Para ello realizamos una amplia búsqueda bibliográfica, contactamos con las sociedades radiológicas de España, Europa y EE.UU y realizamos una encuesta a los principales servicios de radiodiagnóstico de España. Resultados La presencia femenina en radiología va disminuyendo a medida que ascendemos a puestos de liderazgo, situación que se constata tanto en España como en Europa y EE.UU, comparativa que analizaremos en profundidad a lo largo del artículo. En los hospitales españoles en el año 2021 había un 58,1% de mujeres residentes de radiodiagnóstico, 55% de radiólogas, 42,9% de jefas de sección y 24,4% de jefas de servicio. En la historia de la SERAM ha habido un 10% de mujeres presidentas, un 22% de mujeres medallas de oro y un 5% de editoras jefe. Analizando los datos del año 2000 al 2023 el porcentaje de presidentas alcanza el 32% y las mujeres medallas de oro el 31%. Conclusiones Aunque la desigualdad de género está disminuyendo, en radiología las mujeres continúan estando infrarrepresentadas en puestos de liderazgo. Es preciso trabajar para crear una profesión diversa e inclusiva que refleje la realidad demográfica.
Understanding the significant underrepresentation of women in radiology Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-03)
Peraka, Veena
;
Raj, Karuna
;
Champine, Julie
;
Ozcan, Bersu
;
Dogan, Basak
The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the reasons for a significant underrepresentation of women in radiology. We systematically examined the gender disparity within radiology across career stages, including medical school, residency training, and faculty positions. A comprehensive literature analysis was conducted to identify the determinants influencing female medical students' and physicians' pursuit of radiology. Despite women making up approximately half of medical school graduates, their representation in radiology remains disproportionately low. Contributing factors include a scarcity of female mentors and insufficient exposure to radiology during medical training, leading to persistent misconceptions about the specialty. Additionally, female radiology faculty members encounter challenges, including gender bias and difficulty advancing in leadership positions, which contribute to professional dissatisfaction. Strategies like the formation of Women in Radiology groups and institutional initiatives have been established to increase mentorship for female trainees and progression of faculty in their careers. The underrepresentation of women is a concern that warrants attention due to the unique collaborative and empathetic dimensions that women contribute to patient care and education. Throughout their careers, women encounter numerous obstacles that affect their exposure to, involvement in, and satisfaction with the field. Addressing these barriers is crucial for enhancing the presence and influence of women in radiology.
Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF
(2018)
O'Connor, Erin E.
;
Chen, Pauline
;
Weston, Brian
;
Anderson, Redmond
;
Zeffiro, Timothy
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
Assessing the gap in female authorship in the journal Emergency Radiology: trends over a 20-year period Open PDF
(2017)
McKenzie, K.
;
Ramonas, M.
;
Patlas, M.
;
Katz, D.S.
Purpose: To examine trends in female authorship in the journal Emergency Radiology from January 1994 to December 2014. Methods: We obtained institutional review board approval for our study. We retrospectively reviewed a total of 1617 articles published in the journal Emergency Radiology over a 20-year period. Original articles, case reports, review articles, and pictorial essays were included. The first and last position author’s gender was categorized as female or male. We analyzed trends by comparing the first and last position authors of original articles from the first and last year reviewed. We utilized Chi-square test for statistical analysis, with a p value <0.05 noted as significant. Results: One thousand four hundred twenty articles met our inclusion criteria. There were 1420 first position authors and 1295 last position authors. There were 125 articles that had a sole author—these authors were considered as first position authors only. We determined, as best as possible, the gender of 96% of the authors. Overall, female authors were 21% of first position authors (290 of 1368) and 15% of last position authors (183 of 1246). Thirty-two percent of articles with female last position authors also had female first position authors (58 of 183). There was a statistically significant increase in female last position authors, from 12.9% in 1994 to 21.3% in 2014 (p = 0.026), a non-significant increase in female first position authors, from 17.5% in 1994 to 20.9% in 2014 (p = 0.514), and a non-significant increase in articles with both a first and last female author, from 25% in 1994 to 35% in 2014 (p = 0.593). Conclusion: Over the last 20 years, there has been a statistically significant upward trend in female last position authors publishing in the journal Emergency Radiology. © 2017, American Society of Emergency Radiology.
Female Authorship in Radiology: Trends in the Past Decade in CARJ Open PDF
(2021)
Li, N.
;
Alabousi, M.
;
Patlas, M.N.
Purpose: To identify trends in female authorship in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) from 2010 to 2019. Methods: We retrieved papers published in the CARJ over a 10-year period, and retrospectively reviewed 602 articles. All articles except editorials and advertisements were included. We categorized the names of the first and last position authors as female or male and excluded articles that had at least one author of which gender was not known. We compared the trends in the first and last position authors of the articles from 2010 to 2019. For statistical analysis, logistic regression was performed with reported odds ratios (ORs), and a P value of <.05 was defined as statistically significant. Results: Five hundred thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. Among them, 23 articles with a single author were classified as having only a first author. 39.8% (204/513) of first authors were female and 26.9% (132/490) of last authors were female. There has been an overall temporal increase in the odds of both the first and last author being female in CARJ publications (OR: 1.11, P =.034). Similarly, the odds a CARJ publication’s first author being female increased over time (OR: 1.07, P =.033). Female last author did not predict female first author (OR: 1.48, P =.056). There was no association identified between female last author and year of publication (OR: 1.04, P =.225). Conclusion: There has been an overall increase in engagement of female authorship in CARJ. © The Author(s) 2020.
Women in radiology: gender diversity is not a metric-it is a tool for excellence Open PDF
(2020)
Kubik-Huch, Rahel A.
;
Vilgrain, Valérie
;
Krestin, Gabriel P.
;
Reiser, Maximilian F.
;
Attenberger, Ulrike I.
Women in Focus: Be Inspired was a unique programme held at the 2019 European Congress of Radiology that was structured to address a range of topics related to gender and healthcare, including leadership, mentoring and the generational progression of women in medicine. In most countries, women constitute substantially fewer than half of radiologists in academia or private practice despite frequently accounting for at least half of medical school enrolees. Furthermore, the proportion of women decreases at higher academic ranks and levels of leadership, a phenomenon which has been referred to as a "leaky pipeline". Gender diversity in the radiologic workplace, including in academic and leadership positions, is important for the present and future success of the field. It is a tool for excellence that helps to optimize patient care and research; moreover, it is essential to overcome the current shortage of radiologists. This article reviews the current state of gender diversity in academic and leadership positions in radiology internationally and explores a wide range of potential reasons for gender disparities, including the lack of role models and mentorship, unconscious bias and generational changes in attitudes about the desirability of leadership positions. Strategies for both individuals and institutions to proactively increase the representation of women in academic and leadership positions are suggested. KEY POINTS: • Gender-diverse teams perform better. Thus, gender diversity throughout the radiologic workplace, including in leadership positions, is important for the current and future success of the field. • Though women now make up roughly half of medical students, they remain underrepresented among radiology trainees, faculty and leaders. • Factors leading to the gender gap in academia and leadership positions in Radiology include a lack of role models and mentors, unconscious biases, other societal barriers and generational changes.
Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology Open PDF
(2005)
Kliewer, Mark A.
;
Freed, Kelly S.
;
DeLong, David M.
;
Pickhardt, Perry J.
;
Provenzale, James M.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for each reviewer. We also sent a questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer. The demographic profiles were correlated with the average quality score for each reviewer. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and analysis of variance modeling. Reviewer quality scores were also correlated with the scoring of individual reviews and ultimate disposition of 196 manuscripts sent to the AJR during the same period. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 821 reviewers (83.0%), for whom quality scores were available for 714 (87.0%). Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (p = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (p = 0.72), years of reviewing (p = 0.26), academic rank (p = 0.10), or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (p = 0.40). The quality score of the reviewers showed no variation by subspecialty (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The highest-rated AJR reviewers tended to be young and from academic institutions. The quality of peer review did not correlate with the sex, academic rank, or subspecialty of the reviewer.
Gender differences in the publication rate among breast imaging radiologists in the United States and Canada Open PDF
(2018)
Khurshid, K.
;
Shah, S.
;
Ahmadi, M.
;
Jalal, S.
;
Carlos, R.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether academic achievement differs by gender among breast imaging radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined the gender disparity in academic breast radiology using several parameters, including the h-index, the number of publications, and the number of citations. We also inspected gender disparity in academic ranks and leadership ranks. RESULTS. The research productivity of female breast imagers was found to be significantly lower than that of male colleagues across all academic ranks (p < 0.001). In addition, no correlation was noted between female gender and leadership positions (p = 0.57), despite the fact that women dominate the specialty of breast imaging. CONCLUSION. The number of publications by female radiologists has risen steadily over time; however, a significant gender disparity is seen in scholarly productivity. �© American Roentgen Ray Society.
Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study Open PDF
(2024)
Khosa, F.
;
Stewart, M.
;
Liu, L.
;
Ding, J.
;
Rahmim, O.
Purpose: Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue. Results: Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 – 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 – 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 – 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 – 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 – 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals. Conclusion: 60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals. © 2024 The Author(s)
Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review Open PDF
(2024)
Kamran, Rakhshan
;
Jackman, Liam
;
Chan, Cynthia
;
Lee, Ann C.
;
Kamran, Aleeza
BACKGROUND: Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). CONCLUSION: This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results