PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 18

Women in Surgery Open PDF
(American Medical Association (AMA), 2006-04-01)
Gargiulo, Debra A.
HYPOTHESIS: Women are deterred from a surgical career owing to a lack of role models rather than lifestyle considerations. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Surgery and obstetrics/gynecology attending physicians, residents, and medical students. INTERVENTION: Questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential deterrents to a surgical career. RESULTS: Men and women had a similar interest in a surgical career before their surgical rotation (64% vs 53%, P = .68). A similar percentage developed a mentor (40.0% vs 45.9%, P = .40). Women were far more likely to perceive sex discrimination (46.7% vs 20.4%, P = .002), most often from male attending physicians (33.3%) or residents (31.1%). Women were less likely to be deterred by diminishing rewards (4.4% vs 21.6%, P = .003) or workload considerations (28.9% vs 49.0%, P = .02). They were also less likely to cite family concerns as a deterrent (47.8% vs 66.7%, P = .02) and equally likely to be deterred by lifestyle during residency (83.3% vs 76.5%, P = .22). However, women were more likely to be deterred by perceptions of the "surgical personality" (40.0% vs 21.6%, P = .03) and the perception of surgery as an "old boys' club" (22.2% vs 3.9%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Men and women are very similar in what they consider important in deciding on a surgical career. Women are not more likely to be deterred by lifestyle, workload issues, or lack of role models. However, the perceived surgical personality and surgical culture is a sex-specific deterrence to a career in surgery for women.
Gender Research Gap in Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery: Gender-specific Disparities in Submission of Abstracts to the German Congress of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery from 2015 to 2024 Open PDF
(Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2025-04-30)
Vogel, Carolina
;
Bertsch, Vera
;
Rollmann, Mika F.
;
Histing, Tina
;
Braun, Benedikt J.
Gender-specific differences also affect the subject of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (O&T). While the proportion of women studying medicine is steadily increasing, the proportion of female surgeons in O&T is only 18.6%. This underrepresentation affects not only clinics but also research and is reflected in participation in scientific annual meetings such as the German Congress for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DKOU).This retrospective study examined the gender differences in abstract submissions to the DKOU from 2015 to 2024. The anonymised data were subjected to examination regarding gender, role in submission and academic title.The overall participation of women in the 82,813 abstracts was 20%. The proportion of women among submitters was 23.3%, among presenters 24.5% and among co-authors 18.2%. In the analysis of the female cohort alone, women were more likely to be submitters and presenters than in the male cohort (p < 0.001). The proportion of female participation in abstract submissions increased by an average of 0.5% per year over the study period. However, women were significantly underrepresented at higher academic degrees, such as habilitations (7.4%), professorships (7.6%) and university professorships (5.2%).The results show that the proportion of women submitting abstracts to the DKOU largely corresponds to the percentage in the field of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (18.6% in 2022), reflecting the overall gender disparity in this specialty. If this trend analysis were applied to the general development of gender parity in orthopaedics and trauma surgery, gender-equitable staffing of medical positions could not be achieved before the year 2087. To accelerate this development, targeted measures to promote women in orthopaedics and trauma surgery are necessary. This includes dismantling structural barriers and implementing specific support programs for female surgeons pursuing academic careers.
Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals. Open PDF
(2026-05-01)
Lee, Emily Hyunmin
;
Gomes, Zoya
;
Kim, Jinny Minji
;
Liblik, Kiera
;
Travis, Nicole
INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles. RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022. CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
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.
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.
The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF
(2006)
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Guancial, Elizabeth A.
;
Worobey, Cynthia Cooper
;
Henault, Lori E.
;
Chang, Yuchiao
BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
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.
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.
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.
Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials Open PDF
(2021)
Sayyid, Rashid K.
;
Lokeshwar, Soum D.
;
Luckenbaugh, Amy N.
;
Hall, Mary E.
;
Jones, Caitlin E.
BACKGROUND: Female authorship opportunities have lagged behind those of their male counterparts, with gender disparities most prominent in surgical specialties. Our objective was to determine trends of female first, last, and first or last authorships across time and surgical specialties and whether female first or last authorship was associated with journal impact factor. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of EMBASE (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) databases from inception to December 22, 2017 was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery vs classical surgical techniques. The primary end point was female first, last, and first or last authorship, with gender determined via an online search strategy and verified via Genderize.io. Secondary end point was journal impact factor, recorded from Clarivate Analytics InCites. RESULTS: There were 9,321 articles identified and 489 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixty-eight (13.9%) first and 60 (12.3%) last female authors were identified. A positive linear trend for female first (R2 = 0.35, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p < 0.001), last (R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001), and first or last authorships (R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001) over time was identified. This trend was observed across surgical specialties except for orthopaedics. The highest calculated percentages of female first, last, and first or last authorships by the year 2017 were seen in obstetrics and gynecology (33.8%, 32.0%, and 43.8%, respectively), all significantly lower than the corresponding percentage of the female obstetrics and gynecology workforce in 2017 (57.0%). Neither female first nor last authorship positions were associated with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in female first and last authorship in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the last 3 decades has been observed, but continued efforts to bridge this gender gap are sorely needed.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results