PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.Sex Factors

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender-Based Disparities in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Physician Compensation in 2023 Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-03-11)
    Chauhan, Dhun
    ;
    DeYoung, Joshua K.
    ;
    Goodrich, Ezra
    ;
    Templeton, Kimberly
    ;
    Day, Charles S.
    Background: Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the least diverse specialties in medicine. Parity in opportunity and recognition are key factors in attracting and retaining a diverse group of individuals in the field. The primary purpose of this study was to assess gender-based discrepancies in total salary compensation by rank for academic orthopaedic surgery faculty. Methods: Aggregate data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for fiscal year 2023. Mean compensation was compared for orthopaedic surgery faculty and total surgery faculty at all academic ranks based on gender and race. Results: Men received markedly higher total compensation for all ranks except chair within orthopaedic surgery. At the instructor level, men earned an average annual income of $554,245 while women received $229,204, demonstrating a significant pay gap (P = 0.0019). At the assistant professor (men: $628,346; women: $475,857), associate professor (men: $732,381; women: $575,877), and professor (men: $743,822; women: $472,140) levels, there existed significant pay disparities (P < 0.0001 for all three academic levels, respectively). At the chief position, men earned an average of $1,185,873 annually while women received $596,270 (P = 0.0006). Aggregate data for other surgical specialties demonstrated similar results, with women receiving lower total compensation at all ranks compared with men. Conclusion: This analysis of the 2023 American Medical Colleges Faculty Salary Report demonstrates a notable pay differential between men and women in orthopaedic surgery and surgical specialties, in general, across multiple academic levels including instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chief of division. Although there has been increasing awareness of gender-based compensation disparities within surgical specialties, particularly in orthopaedic surgery, these disparities are still clearly present.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Gap in Scientific Publications on COVID-19 in Italy During the First Wave of the Pandemic: An Observational Study Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Mazzalai, Elena
    ;
    Turatto, Federica
    ;
    De Vito, Corrado
    Background: Worldwide, concerns rise on how COVID-19 pandemic impacted heavily on women, even on those belonging to the scientific community. The Italian scientific production regarding the COVID-19 throughout the first months of the health emergency could help to understand the heft of female researchers in this unique period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the gender gap in the scientific production on COVID-19 in Italy during the first months of the pandemic. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted and, for each included study, first and last author's gender, type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation, journal's Impact Factor (IF) and specialization were extracted. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. Results: 22.2% of the articles were signed by a woman as first author, 18.1% as last authors. Female authorship was less frequent than male authorship regardless of the type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation and field of specialization. Conclusion: This analysis reveal a low prevalence of studies with a female first or last author and suggests that the low share of female authors publishing on COVID-19 during the considered timespan is a transversal issue throughout the Italian medical field.
  • 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,
    Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Xiao, Nicholas
    ;
    Mansukhani, Neel A.
    ;
    Mendes de Oliveira, Diego F.
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    Importance: Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives: To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results: Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.
  • 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,
    Glass Ceiling in Hand Surgery: Publication Trends by Gender
    (2022)
    Bram, Joshua T.
    ;
    Magee, Lacey C.
    ;
    Parambath, Andrew
    ;
    Bauer, Andrea S.
    ;
    Lawler, Ericka A.
    Background: Women are frequently underrepresented across surgical subspecialties and may face barriers to academic advancement. Abstracts presented at American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting (ASSH-AM) highlight some of the top research in hand surgery. We sought to explore differences in abstract characteristics and publication rates based on senior author gender.Though there have been increasing efforts at inclusivity in orthopedic and plastic surgery, women face several barriers to entering the field, publish less frequently, and are underrepresented in leadership positions. Understanding the stages at which discrepancies in research productivity exist may help to address these challenges. Methods: Abstracts from the 2010-2017 ASSH-AMs were reviewed to determine basic characteristics. Author gender was determined through both a search of institutional websites for gender-specific pronouns and inference of gender based on first name. Subsequent full manuscript publications corresponding to the abstracts were identified through a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar. Results: A total of 560/620 (90.3%) abstracts from 2010-2017 had an identifiable senior author gender (14.5% female). No differences were noted between male- and female-authored abstracts regarding study design including sample size or level of evidence. Female senior authors were more likely than males to author abstracts focused on pediatrics (19.8% vs 9.4%, p=0.01) and were more likely to collaborate with female first authors (41.3% vs 20.0%, p<0.01). Abstract publication rates were lower for female senior authors versus male senior authors (61.7% vs 74.5%, p=0.02). Conclusion: The number of abstracts with female senior authors had similar representation to the membership proportion of women in the ASSH. There were few differences in abstract characteristics based on senior author gender, though senior authors tend to collaborate with investigators of the same gender. Abstracts authored by females were published 13% less frequently overall, meriting further exploration. Level of Evidence: III.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Academic Productivity and Promotion Among Endocrine Surgery Faculty Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2022)
    Ammann, A.M.
    ;
    Delman, A.M.
    ;
    Bethi, M.
    ;
    Turner, K.M.
    ;
    Sedaghat, A.R.
    Introduction: Academic rank and metrics such as total publications (pubs) and H-index are indicators to measure academic achievement. This study aims to determine whether there are gender differences in academic productivity or faculty appointments among endocrine surgeons in the United States. Methods: A database was generated from the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) website. Community or academic practice was designated by institution affiliation and faculty appointment. Academic metrics, including pubs, H-index, and weighted-RCR (relative citation ratio), were obtained from public databases. Results: A total of 258 AAES members were affiliated with an academic institution. The majority were men (58%). Overall, men in endocrine surgery had higher academic metrics: pubs (56.0 [26-134], 23.0 [11-56], P < 0.0001), H-index (19.0 [11-35], 9.0 [5-21], P < 0.0001), weighted-RCR (63.5 [22-193], 24.1 [8-74], P < 0.005) and rank (associate professor or professor, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis accounting for time in practice found no difference in total publications, weighted RCR, or faculty appointments between genders in practice for 0-5 y. However, among surgeons in practice for 6-10 y, men had higher academic metrics (pubs: 31.0 [16-79], 18.5 [9-33]; RCR: 46.0 [14-102], 13.3 [9-34]) and faculty appointments (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: There are gender disparities in academic productivity and faculty appointment among US endocrine surgeons. While junior faculty show no gender differences in most indicators of academic productivity or rank, men with 6-10 y in practice have higher average academic metrics and rank. Whether the absence of gender disparities among junior faculty is a sustainable reflection of recent efforts to encourage equal mentorship and professional opportunities or whether disparities will manifest as faculty progress remains to be determined. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.