PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgeryGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Canada

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation Among Major Plastic Surgery Society Achievement Award Recipients Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Ni, Tiffany
    ;
    Cebron, Urska
    ;
    Zuo, Kevin J.
    ;
    Stefaniuk, Stephanie
    ;
    Snell, Laura
    Purpose: Professional achievement awards are an important factor in recruitment, promotion, and faculty review within academic institutions. Studies have shown that subconscious, gender-based assumptions of individuals and their work in traditionally male-dominated fields lead to more positive evaluations of men than women, a phenomenon present among scientific and medical award committees. This study examined gender representation among recipients of major North American plastic surgery society awards over the last 50 years. Methods: Recipient lists of major achievement awards bestowed by ten American and Canadian plastic surgery societies between 1970 and 2020 were accessed online or by direct contact with the society. Awardee gender, institution affiliation, graduation year, fellowship status, and additional major awards received were recorded. Comparisons were made between gender representation among society presidents, board membership, general society memberships, attending physicians, and plastic surgery residency enrolment. Results: Thirty-two major awards given by ten plastic surgery societies were included. Six hundred and twenty-five awards were conferred, of which 47 recipients were female (7.5%). Of the 121 individuals that received multiple major awards, 8 were female. Two-thirds of female awardees (72%) were clinical plastic surgeons and the remainder were scientists. Over the past 50 years, there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of female award winners. Conclusions: Despite a gradual increase in the proportion of female awardees in major plastic surgery societies, female plastic surgeons remain underrepresented among awardees, with less than 10% of major awards conferred to females.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Does academic authorship reflect gender bias in pediatric surgery? An analysis of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 2007–2017 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Marrone, Alexandra F.
    ;
    Berman, Loren
    ;
    Brandt, Mary L.
    ;
    Rothstein, David H.
    Background Gender representation in academic publications has been considered a surrogate for gender equity in medicine, although this concept has not been evaluated in pediatric surgery. Methods First and last author genders for Journal of Pediatric Surgery articles from United States and/or Canadian institutions (2007, 2012, 2017) were identified. These data were compared to gender proportions for applicants to and matriculants in pediatric surgery fellowships as well as among American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) members. Results Authorship gender was identified for 632/640 primary articles (98.8%). From 2007 to 2017, the proportion of women as first authors increased from 33.0% to 53.9% (p < 0.001) and as last authors from 16.2% to 26.4% (p = 0.01). The proportion of women fellowship applicants rose from 35.9% to 57.6% (p < 0.001); among those who successfully matched the rise was nonlinear (20.5%–34.0%, p = 0.16). APSA junior and senior women membership proportions rose during the study period [from 28.1% to 43.4% (p = 0.06 for linear trend) and 17.9% to 24.4% (p = 0.005 for linear trend), respectively]. Conclusions Over the past decade, the overall proportion of women authors in a leading academic pediatric surgery journal has increased significantly, although representation among last authors remains disproportionately low. The numbers of women applicants to pediatric surgery fellowship increased but there was not a concordant rise in the number of women accepted into training positions. Type of study Bibliometric analysis. Level of evidence n/a
  • 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,
    h-Index and Academic Rank by Gender Among Breast Surgery Fellowship Faculty Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Radford, Diane M.
    ;
    Parangi, Sareh
    ;
    Tu, Chao
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women’s role in neurosurgical research: is the gender gap improving? Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Pastor-Cabeza, M.
    ;
    Torné, R.
    ;
    García-Armengol, R.
    ;
    Menéndez-Osorio, B.
    ;
    Mosteiro-Cadaval, A.
    Objective The percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons. Methods Two of the most prominent neurosurgical journals—Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery—were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions’ region. Results A total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001). Conclusions Although this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers’ profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates. ©AANS 2021, except where prohibited by US copyright law
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of Authorship in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery: Women Remain Underrepresented Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Farooq, Ayesha
    ;
    Sahara, Kota
    ;
    Muneeb, Aeman
    ;
    Farooq, Khadija
    ;
    Tsilimigras, Diamantis I.
    INTRODUCTION: Given the need to increase female representation in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, as well as the need to increase the academic pipeline of women in this subspecialty, we sought to characterize the prevalence of female authorship in the HPB literature. In particular, the objective of the current study was to determine the proportion of women who published HPB research articles as first, second, or last author over the last decade. METHODS: All articles pertaining to hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery appearing in seven surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, HPB (Oxford), Surgery, and Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery) were reviewed for the years 2008 and 2018. Information on sex of author, country of author's institution, and article type was collected and entered into a computerized database. RESULTS: Among the 1473 index articles included in the final analytic cohort, 414 (28%) publications had a woman as the first or last author, while the vast majority (n = 1,059, 72%) had a man as the first or last author. The number of female first authors increased from 15.6% (n = 92/591) in 2008 to 25.7% (n = 227/882) in 2018 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of second (n = 123/536, 23.0% vs n = 214/869, 24.6%, p = 0.47) or last (n = 44/564, 7.8% vs n = 88/875, 10.1%, p = 0.15) authors. Women were more likely to publish papers appearing in medium-impact journals (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.88) and articles with a female author were more likely to be from a North American institution (referent: North America, Asia OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59 vs Europe OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87). CONCLUSION: Women first/last authors in HPB research articles have increased over the past 10 years from 22 to 32%. Women as last authors remain low, however, as only 1 in 10 papers had a senior woman author. These data should prompt HPB leaders to find solutions to the gap in female authorship including mentorship of young female researchers and surgeons.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of Additional Degrees in Academic Plastic Surgery Faculty Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Chawla, Sahil
    ;
    Faheem, Sarim
    ;
    Moreton, Michael L.
    ;
    Sekhon, Amardeep
    ;
    Amornteerasawas, Orapin M.
    Background: As plastic surgery continues to evolve, an increasing number of surgeons are attaining additional degrees (ADs). Prior studies illustrate this trend of increased AD attainment among plastic surgery faculty within the United States. Yet, no such study has documented AD attainment variability and influence within Canadian plastic surgery faculty. Objectives: Our objective was to investigate the relationship between AD attainment and gender, alongside research productivity, and academic rank of Canadian plastic surgery faculty members. Methods: All Canadian academic plastic surgery faculty members were identified and information regarding gender, academic rank, research productivity, timing of AD attainment was recorded. AD was defined as any degree beyond a medical degree or equivalent. Results: A total of 299 faculty members were identified. Of these, 33% (N = 99) attained an AD. A higher percentage of females (40%) obtained ADs compared to males (30%) (P = .0402). When controlling for number of years in practice, there was a significantly larger proportion of females than males with ADs as assistant and associate professor (P = .033). Faculty with ADs were associated with higher research productivity and higher academic rank than those with MDs (P < .05). ADs were commonly obtained post-residency (38%) and most common ADs were MSc (51%) and PhDs (21%). It was found that the Canadian plastic surgeons were less likely to pursue MBAs than US plastic surgeons (P = .002). Conclusion: One-third of Canadian academic plastic surgeons had ADs. Those with ADs present with higher research productivity and academic rank. When segmented by gender, there were significant differences among AD holders. The results of this study will lend support to ongoing endeavors voicing the need for gender equity in academic plastic surgery.