PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9

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.
Gender Disparity in the Citation of Surgical Research Open PDF
(2022)
Kane, W.J.
;
Hedrick, T.L.
;
Schroen, A.T.
BACKGROUND: Women surgeons face numerous barriers to career advancement. Inequitable citation of surgical literature may represent a contributing factor to gender disparities in academic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional analysis of publications from 50 top-ranking surgery journals in 2017 and 2018, as defined by the 2019 InCites Journal Citation Reports. The citation rate of publications by women vs men first authors was compared. Similarly, the citation rate of publications by men vs women last authors was also compared. Adjusted regression analyses of citation rates accounted for the time interval since publication as well as the journal within which the article was published, among other potential confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 19,084 publications from 48 surgery journals with a median (interquartile range) of 8 (4 to 15) citations contributing to a median (interquartile range) Journal Impact Factor of 4.0 (3.4 to 4.6) were analyzed. Compared with man-first author publications, woman-first author publications demonstrated a 9% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.91, p < 0.001). Similarly, compared with publications by man-last authors, woman-last author publications demonstrated a 4% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.96, p = 0.03). These associations persisted after multivariable adjustment for additional confounding factors, however, not on sensitivity analysis of 24 of the highest-ranking journals. CONCLUSIONS: Among top-tier surgical journals, publications by women-first and -last authors were less cited compared with publications by men-first and -last authors, but not among the highest-tier surgical journals. Gender bias may exist in the citation of surgical research, contributing to gender disparities in academic surgery. Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Editorial (Spring) Board? Gender Composition in High-impact General Surgery Journals Over 20 Years Open PDF
(2019)
Harris, Chelsea A.
;
Banerjee, Tanima
;
Cramer, Monica
;
Manz, Shannon
;
Ward, Sarah T.
Objective: To quantify gender composition of 10 high-impact general surgery journals, delineate how board composition has changed over time, and evaluate qualification metrics by gender. Background: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards may contribute to the gender-based achievement gap in surgery. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial board gender composition among 10 high-impact general surgery journals in 1997, 2007, and 2017. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in editors’ H-indices, academic rank, and number of advanced degrees. Differences in editor turnover and multiple board positions were evaluated for each time interval. Results: Over 20 years, the proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 5% to 19%. After controlling for time since board certification, no differences between men and women's number of advanced degrees, H-indices, or academic rank remained significant. Women and men were equally likely to hold multiple board positions (1997 P = 0.74; 2007 P = 0.42; 2017 P = 0.69), but men's editorial board tenure was longer across each time interval (1997–2007 P = 0.003; 2007–2017 P < 0.001; 1997–2017 P = 0.01). Conclusions: Women surgeons have a small but growing presence on surgical editorial boards, and gender-based qualification differences are likely attributable to practice length. Men's longer tenure on editorial boards may drive some of the observed disparity by limiting new appointment opportunities. Strategies such as imposing term limits or instituting merit-based performance reviews may help editorial boards capture the field's changing demographics.
Diversification of Academic Surgery, Its Leadership, and the Importance of Intersectionality Open PDF
(2021)
Riner, Andrea N.
;
Herremans, Kelly M.
;
Neal, Daniel W.
;
Johnson-Mann, Crystal
;
Hughes, Steven J.
Importance: Diversity in academic surgery is lacking, particularly among positions of leadership. Objective: To evaluate trends among racial/ethnical minority groups stratified by gender along the surgical pipeline, as well as in surgical leadership. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis assessed US surgical faculty census data obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster in the Faculty Administrative Management Online User System database. Surgical faculty members captured in census data from December 31, 2013, to December 31, 2019, were included in the analysis. Faculty were identified from the surgery category of the faculty roster, which includes general surgeons and subspecialists, neurosurgeons, and urologists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Gender and race/ethnicity were obtained for surgical faculty stratified by rank. Descriptive statistics with annual percentage of change in representation are reported based on faculty rank. Results: A total of 15 653 US surgical faculty, including 3876 women (24.8%), were included in the data set for 2019. Female faculty from racial/ethnic minority groups experienced an increase in representation at instructor and assistant and associate professorship appointments, with a more favorable trajectory than male faculty from racial/ethnic minority groups across nearly all ranks. White faculty maintain most leadership positions as full professors (3105 of 3997 [77.7%]) and chairs (294 of 380 [77.4%]). The greatest magnitude of underrepresentation along the surgical pipeline has been among Black (106 of 3997 [2.7%]) and Hispanic/Latinx (176 of 3997 [4.4%]) full professors. Among full professors, although Black and Hispanic/Latinx male representation increased modestly (annual change, 0.07% and 0.10%, respectively), Black female representation remained constant (annual change, 0.00004%) and Hispanic/Latinx female representation decreased (annual change, -0.16%). Overall Hispanic/Latinx (20 of 380 [5.3%]) and Black (13 of 380 [3.4%]) representation as chairs has not changed, with only 1 Black and 1 Hispanic/Latinx woman ascending to chair from 2013 to 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: A disproportionately small number of faculty from minority groups obtain leadership positions in academic surgery. Intersectionality may leave female members of racial/ethnic minority groups more disadvantaged than their male colleagues in achieving leadership positions. These findings highlight the urgency to diversify surgical leadership.
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.
Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF
(2020)
Brown, Meghan A.
;
Erdman, Mary Kate
;
Munger, Alana M.
;
Miller, Anna N.
BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.
Sex Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Surgeons in the United States in 2014. Open PDF
(2018)
Blumenthal, Daniel M.
;
Bergmark, Regan W.
;
Raol, Nikhila
;
Bohnen, Jordan D.
;
Eloy, Jean Anderson
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in full professorship among a comprehensive, contemporary cohort of US academic surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work demonstrates that women are less likely than men to be full professors in academic medicine, and in certain surgical subspecialties. Whether sex differences in academic rank exist across all surgical fields, and after adjustment for confounders, is not known. METHODS: A comprehensive list of surgeons with faculty appointments at US medical schools in 2014 was obtained from Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty roster and linked to a comprehensive physician database from Doximity, an online physician networking website, which contained the following data for all physicians: sex, age, years since residency, publication number (total and first/last author), clinical trials participation, National Institutes of Health grants, and surgical subspecialty. A 20% sample of 2013 Medicare payments for care was added to this dataset. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate sex differences in full professorship, adjusting for these variables and medical school-specific fixed effects. RESULTS: Among 11,549 surgeon faculty at US medical schools in 2014, 1692 (14.7%) were women. Women comprised 19.4% of assistant professors (1072/5538), 13.8% of associate professors (404/2931), and 7.0% of full professors (216/3080). After multivariable analysis, women were less likely to be full professors than men (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.6-0.9). CONCLUSION: Among surgical faculty at US medical schools in 2014, women were less likely than men to be full professors after adjustment for multiple factors known to impact faculty rank.
Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions in Neurology and Neurosurgery Journals and Societies Open PDF
(2024)
Apaydin, Aydin Sinan
;
Emekli, Inci
OBJECTIVE: Gender inequalities persist in several areas of medicine, despite the growing number of female doctors and medical students. In this study, we aimed to reveal the gender inequality in the top journals' editorial boards and national societies' leadership positions in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study that uses public information accessed through the internet via journals' and academic societies' public websites. The medical journals are selected and included according to their h5-index in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. We evaluated the gender composition of the editorial boards and academic societies' leadership positions. RESULTS: The female editorial board member ratio was 44.0% in the top 10 neurology journals. However, this ratio was significantly decreased to 29.7% in the other journals(P < 0.001). The top 10 neurosurgery journals had a female editorial board member ratio of 13.7%. This ratio was significantly decreased to 5.3% in the other 10 journals with lower h5-index(P < 0.001). A significantly lower number of female individuals are present in the editorial boards of the neurosurgery journals than in neurology(P < 0.001). The female president or delegate ratio was 19.3% in the World Federation of Neurology-affiliated countries, and it was 4% in the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies-affiliated countries. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, there is a significant gender inequality among editorial board members. The position of neurosurgical societies and journals is far different than the field of neurology. Furthermore, these findings should be evaluated as a continuum of the gender inequality in the professional societies' executive boards and delegates representing the national academical community.
The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons Open PDF
(2022)
Agaronnik, Nicole
;
Xiong, Grace X.
;
Uzosike, Akachimere
;
Crawford, Alexander M.
;
Lightsey, Harry M.
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion. RESULTS: The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results