PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.RadiologySubject: search.filters.subject.Women Physicians

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Underrepresentation of Women on Radiology Editorial Boards. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Jalilianhasanpour, Rozita
    ;
    Charkhchi, Paniz
    ;
    Mirbolouk, Mohammadhassan
    ;
    Yousem, David M.
    PURPOSE: Women in radiology are known to be underrepresented in academic leadership positions. We sought to determine if women are appropriately represented on editorial boards and editor-in-chief positions compared with their authorship contributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the first and senior authorship male versus female gender breakdown of manuscripts published in nine high-impact American radiology journals 1 month per year from 2002 to 2017. We looked at the gender of the first authors, senior authors, editorial board members, and editors-in-chief of these journals to see if there was a gender discrepancy. RESULTS: We assessed 3,702 first authors, 3,702 senior authors, and 9,400 editorial board members. Women were underrepresented on the editorial boards compared with their first-authored manuscript contribution in our sample of articles from every journal for every year and were underrepresented compared with their senior-authored manuscript contributions in 119 of 139 (85.6%) journal-years. The percentage of women as first authors (mean = 29.3 ± 9.9), senior authors (mean = 20.7 ± 8.1), and editorial board members (mean = 13.4 ± 6.5) showed major differences (P < .001). This gap did not significantly narrow over the 16 years of study. Notably, there was no woman as editor-in-chief for any of the journal-years. CONCLUSION: There is a gender gap in the composition of editorial boards in radiology compared with authorship contributions by women. Given the implications of editorial board assignment and editorship on women's academic advancement, journals may wish to consider strategies that will narrow the gap.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Goswami, Abhishek K.
    ;
    Kokabi, Nima
    ;
    Khaja, Minhaj S.
    ;
    Saad, Wael E.
    ;
    Khaja, Akram
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity Among Leaders of Canadian Academic Radiology Departments Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Qamar, Sadia Raheez
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    ;
    Probyn, Linda
    OBJECTIVE. Underrepresentation of women in the top hierarchy of academic medicine exists despite women comprising more than half of the medical school graduates and residency positions. The purpose of this study is to analyze and quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and career advancement in Canadian academic radiology departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seventeen academic radiology departments with affiliated residency programs in Canada were searched for publicly available data on faculty to generate a database for gender and academic profiles of the radiologists. Bibliometric data were collected using Scopus archives. The associations of gender, academic ranks, and leadership positions were assessed, and a p value of ≤ 0.05 was defined as significant. Significant variables were analyzed using a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS. Of 1266 faculty members, gender information and academic rank were available for 932 faculty members: 597 (64.05%) were men and 335 (35.95%) were women (χ2 = 21.82; p < 0.0001). Of a total of 563 assistant professors, 331 (58.79%) were men and 232 (41.21%) were women; of 258 associate professors, 177 (68.60%) were men and 81 (31.40%) were women; and of 111 professors, 89 (80.18%) were men and 22 (19.82%) were women. The gender gap widens at higher academic ranks, displaying a threefold drop in the ratio of women holding the rank of full professor (6.57%) compared with 14.91% male professors; 29.55% of women radiologists have first-in-command leadership positions compared with 70.45% of men. A comparable or higher h-index is noted for women Canadian radiologists after adjusting for number of citations, number of publications, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Canadian academic radiology departments have fewer women radiologists in senior faculty and leadership positions. Our study results show that Canadian female radiologists at the professor level have more publications than their male counterparts.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender trends in radiology authorship: A 35-year analysis Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Piper, C.L.
    ;
    Scheel, J.R.
    ;
    Lee, C.I.
    ;
    Forman, H.P.
    Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe trends over time in female authorship in the radiology literature and to investigate the tendency of female first authors to publish with female senior authors. Materials and Methods. Data on the gender of academic physician authors based in the United States for all major articles published in three general radiology journals-Radiology, AJR, and Academic Radiology-were collected and analyzed for the years 1978, 1988, 1998, 2008, and 2013. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant trends over time, and a chi-square test of independence was performed to determine significant relations between the genders of first and senior authors. Results. The gender of 4182 of 4217 (99.17%) authors with MD degrees was determined. The proportion of original research articles published by women as first authors increased from 8.33% in 1978 to 32.35% in 2013 (p < 0.001). The proportion of original research articles with women as senior authors increased from 6.75% in 1978 to 21.90% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Female first and senior authorship increased significantly over time (first author, p < 0.001; senior author, p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant relation between the genders of first and senior authors of original research articles and guest editorials (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Over 35 years, there was a statistically significant upward linear trend of female physician participation in authorship of academic radiology literature. Female first authors were more likely to publish with female senior authors. © American Roentgen Ray Society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Collaboration Metrics Among Female and Male Researchers: A 5-Year Review of Publications in Major Radiology Journals Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Campbell, James C.
    ;
    Yoon, Sora C.
    ;
    Grimm, Lars J.
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Women are under-represented in radiology, but the implications of this under-representation are poorly understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if articles published by women in major radiology journals were more collaborative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following an institutional review board exemption, we reviewed all original research articles in Radiology, in the American Journal of Roentgenology, and in Academic Radiology from 2011 to 2015. For each article, the gender of the first and the last authors and proxy measures of collaboration were recorded, including the total number of authors, female authors, departments, and institutions. Nominal logistic regression analysis was used to test for associations while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: There were 1934 articles analyzed. Female first and last authors represented 30.2% (585 of 1934) and 24.4% (473 of 1934) of the articles, respectively. A female first author was associated with more female last authors (36% vs 20%, P < .001), total female authors (2.9 vs 1.2, P < .001), and departments (3.3 vs 3.0, P < .001). Similarly, a female last author was associated with more female first authors (44% vs 26%, P = .001), total female authors (3.1 vs 1.2, P < .001), departments (3.5 vs 3.0 P < .001), and institutions (2.3 vs 1.9, P = .006). Each additional female author increased the mean number of institutions by 0.33 and departments by 0.46 on linear regression. First- or last-author gender was not associated with total authors (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Original research articles published with a female first or last author were associated with more departments and institutions, but not with the total number of authors, suggesting that women engage in some metrics of more collaborative research.