PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.General Surgery

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex differences in altmetric attention scores and traditional impact metrics of top‐cited general surgery literature: Cracks in the ceiling? Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2024-06-18)
    Waqar, Usama
    ;
    Martins, Russell Seth
    ;
    Siddiqui, Ayra
    ;
    Waheed, Ayesha Akbar
    ;
    Ahmed, Abdullah
    Background Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top‐cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs). Methods We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H‐index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count. Results Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0–63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0–28.5]; p < 0.001) and lower H‐indices (24.0 [11.0–45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0–50.0]; p = 0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0–85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p < 0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001–1.004]) and lower H‐index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977–0.997]). Conclusion Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women authors of surgical research Open PDF 
    (2005)
    Kurichi, Jibby E.
    ;
    Kelz, Rachel R.
    ;
    Sonnad, Seema S.
    HYPOTHESIS: The number of women authors in the surgical literature has increased during the past 20 years. DESIGN: Randomly selected issues of odd-year journals in Archives of Surgery and Annals of Surgery from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 2003, were reviewed. We determined the gender of each author and reported trends in the occurrence of women authors over time. RESULTS: The percentage of women authors has increased over time and parallels the percentage of women faculty in academic surgery positions. A much higher percentage of women authors than men authors are nonphysicians. The trend for increased authorship by women over time was significant in Archives of Surgery. CONCLUSION: Although the number of women first authors is low, their contributions to the field of surgery should be acknowledged, and efforts to provide women with the resources and opportunities to conduct research and publish their findings should be a focus for surgical departments looking to increase their research productivity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Zhuge, Ying
    ;
    Kaufman, Joyce
    ;
    Simeone, Diane M.
    ;
    Chen, Herbert
    ;
    Velazquez, Omaida C.
    Despite the dramatically increased entry of women into general surgery and surgical subspecialties, traditionally male-dominated fields, there remains a gross under-representation of women in the leadership positions of these departments. Women begin their careers with fewer academic resources and tend to progress through the ranks slower than men. Female surgeons also receive significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts and are more vulnerable to discrimination, both obvious and covert. Although some argue that female surgeons tend to choose their families over careers, studies have actually shown that women are as eager as men to assume leadership positions, are equally qualified for these positions as men, and are as good as men at leadership tasks.Three major constraints contribute to the glass-ceiling phenomenon: traditional gender roles, manifestations of sexism in the medical environment, and lack of effective mentors. Gender roles contribute to unconscious assumptions that have little to do with actual knowledge and abilities of an individuals and they negatively influence decision-making when it comes to promotions. Sexism has many forms, from subtle to explicit forms, and some studies show that far more women report being discriminately against than do men. There is a lack of same-sex mentors and role models for women in academic surgery, thereby isolating female academicians further. This review summarizes the manifestation of the glass-ceiling phenomenon, identifies some causes of these inequalities, and proposes different strategies for continuing the advancement of women in academic surgery and to shatter the glass ceiling.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Gravid Situation: General Surgery Faculty Support for Pregnant Surgical Residents Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Freudenberger, Devon C.
    ;
    Riner, Andrea N.
    ;
    Herremans, Kelly M.
    ;
    Vudatha, Vignesh
    ;
    McGuire, Kandace P.
    INTRODUCTION: The perceptions of teaching faculty toward pregnant general surgery residents have been overlooked despite the daily interactions amongst these groups. METHODS: A 32-question survey designed to measure general surgery teaching faculty perceptions toward pregnant residents was distributed electronically from March 2022 to April 2022 to general surgery teaching faculty in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize responses and differences in perceptions, and qualitative analysis identified recurring themes from free-text responses. RESULTS: Among 163 respondents included in the final analysis, 58.5% were male and 41.5% were female. Despite 99.4% of surgeons feeling comfortable if a resident told them they were pregnant, 22.4% of surgeons disagreed that their institutions have supportive cultures toward pregnancy. Almost half (45.4%) have witnessed negative comments about pregnant residents and half (50.3%) believe that pregnant surgical residents are discriminated against by their coresidents. Nearly two-thirds of surgeons (64.8%) believe that someone should have a child whenever they wish during training. Given recent reports, 80.2% of surgeons recognized that female surgeons have increased risks of infertility and pregnancy complications. Recurring themes of normalizing pregnancy, improving policies, and creating a culture change were expressed. CONCLUSIONS: In this national survey, although there appears to be positive perceptions of pregnancy in surgical training amongst those surveyed, there is acknowledged necessity of further normalizing pregnancy and improving policies to better support pregnant residents. These data provide further evidence that though perceptions may be improving, changes are still needed to better support pregnancy during training.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Gender Gap in Surgical Literature: Are We Making Progress? Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Ajay, P.S.
    ;
    Sharperson, C.M.
    ;
    Shah, S.K.
    ;
    Kooby, D.A.
    ;
    Shah, M.M.
    Introduction: The percentage of women in surgical leadership roles is not commensurate with percent of women in field of surgery. Citation indexes are used as proxy for scholarly impact and may serve as an indicator of women's progress in academic surgery. We aimed to evaluate gender disparities in authorship of surgery manuscripts in high-impact journals. Methods: In this bibliometric analysis of original research articles from four high-impact surgical journals from 2008 to 2010 (period A) and 2018-2020 (period B), the gender of primary and senior authors was assigned by Genderize.io. Number of citations per article was identified via Web of Science. Number of citations by gender of authors was compared across time periods. Results: Of the 3575 articles (Period A = 1915; Period B = 1660), 962 (26.9%) had women as primary authors and 590 (17.2%) as senior authors. Over time, significant increases in women primary and senior authorship were noted from 22.8% to 31.7% (P < 0.001) and 13.9% (254/11,915) to 21% (336/1660), respectively (P < 0.001). Articles written with women primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than those by men as primary author in period A (39 [17-69.5] versus 42 [20.0-84.0]; P = 0.005). Gender parity was noted in period B (9 [4-19] versus 9 [4-20] citations; P = 0.307). In period A, articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately 25% fewer median citations compared with those by men (34 [17-62] versus 44 [21-86]); P < 0.011), and this reached parity in period B (9 [4-20] versus 9 [4-21]); P < 0.658). Conclusions: Overall, gender authorship and citations parity are improving in high-impact surgery journals. © 2023 Elsevier Inc.