PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.UrologyGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Needs and Experiences of United States Female Urology Residents Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2023-10)
    Sheng, Michelle
    ;
    Chu, Alice
    ;
    Catic, Almira
    ;
    Hartsell, Lindsey
    ;
    Mehta, Akanksha
    Abstract Objective: To identify factors influencing residency training program selection by women residents in urology and to evaluate the residents' gender-based experiences during training. Urology remains a disproportionately male-physician-dominated field. Understanding the needs and experiences of women residents is essential for developing strategies to recruit and retain more women urologists in independent practice. Methods: An anonymous, 15-item web-based electronic survey was posted on social media and distributed via institutional email addresses between May and July 2021, targeted to all 461 current women U.S. urology residents. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and thematic analysis, respectively. Results: 147 complete responses were received. The most important factors influencing initial residency training program selection included geographic location/setting (37%) and institutional reputation (27%), compared to number of women faculty (3.4%) and women residents (0%). However, respondents cited a need for increased presence of women faculty and mentorship (36%), elimination of gender bias/harassment in the workplace (33%), and improved family support/maternity leave policies (15%) during residency to better foster clinical and academic growth of women residents. In interactions with patients, 97% reported not being recognized as a doctor, 84% reported stereotyping of women doctors, and 78% reported experiencing inappropriate treatment/harassment from male patients. Conclusion: Geographic setting and institutional reputation were the most important factors for residency program selection by women urology residents. Although overlooked as a priority during the initial application process, current women urology residents seek increased women faculty presence, leadership and mentorship during residency to foster clinical and academic growth. Women residents face extremely high rates of gender bias and harassment in the workplace. Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Examining Gender Representation in US News and World Report Top 25 Urology Departments: Female Faculty Hold Lower Professorial Levels and Publication Rates Than Male Counterparts Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2024-12-17)
    Venigalla, Greeshma
    ;
    Sadiq, Sabika
    ;
    Gurayah, Aaron A.
    ;
    Soodana‐Prakash, Nachiketh
    ;
    Martin, Laura
    ABSTRACT Objectives To examine female representation in US News and World Report (USNWR) top 25 US Urology departments and identify trends of female representation in institutional roles. Methods Using the 2022 USNWR, we collected data from each institution's websites along with a compared geographically local cohort to evaluate the presence of female residents, female attendings, and professorial levels. First or last author faculty publications numbers were found using PubMed and Scopus in fiscal year 2022. Results The top 25 institutions averaged ~32.3% female residents and 18.7% female attendings, which was not significantly different from the comparison cohort. Of the total publications of fiscal year 2022, female attendings contributed ~14% ( p  < 0.001), also not significantly different from the comparison cohort. Only 20.4% of listed female attendings in top 25 programs are full Professors, compared to 41.1% of the listed men ( p  < 0.05). The most common level of female professorship is Assistant Professor (53.4%). Level of female professorship between cohort was significantly different, with female urologists more likely to hold a title of full Professor in the top 25 cohort compared to the nontop 25 cohort regardless of similar publication output ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Female faculty in Urology continue to be underrepresented in the top Urology departments, with significant difference in equitable female professorship appointments between top 25 and nontop 25 departments. Future directions include examining the impact of early mentorship and sponsorship on representation over time.
  • Item type:Publication,
    PD30-09 TRENDS IN FEMALE AUTHORSHIP AMONG UROLOGY RESIDENTS: IS THE GENDER GAP CLOSING? Open PDF 
    (Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia, PA, 2023)
    Ong, Melody
    ;
    Ballway, Joshua
    ;
    Kokush, Emily
    ;
    Fastenau, John
    ;
    Mina, George
    INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Gender disparities have been demonstrated among women in academia. Women face barriers to acquiring mentorship, publishing, and obtaining academic promotions. Urology, a historically male-dominated field, has seen a steady rise ...
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hsiehchen, D.
    ;
    Hsieh, A.
    ;
    Espinoza, M.
    IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
  • 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,
    MP57-20 GENDER EQUITY IN ACADEMIC UROLOGY Open PDF 
    (Wolters KluwerPhiladelphia, PA, 2023)
    Finney, Esther L.
    ;
    Iacono, Ellis
    ;
    Vallamkonda, Sachin
    ;
    Maclachlan, Lara S.
    INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Women are increasingly represented among urologic trainees and now comprise 10% of the urologic workforce but are historically underrepresented within academic urology. We aimed to assess the current status of gender equity among leadership positions in academic urology, and to determine whether gender differences exist in objective qualifications.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities Among Editorial Boards of International Urology Journals Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Burg, M.L.
    ;
    Sholklapper, T.
    ;
    Kohli, P.
    ;
    Kaneko, M.
    ;
    Maria Autran, A.
    Background: Gender composition among surgical academic leadership, including academic medical journals, disproportionately favors men and may inadvertently introduce a bias. An understanding of the factors associated with gender representation among urologic journals may aid in prioritizing an equitable balance. Objective: To evaluate female representation on editorial boards of pre-eminent international urologic journals. Design, setting, and participants: The names and position descriptions of urologic journal leadership appointees were collected in October 2021. Gender was assessed using gender-api.com or through personal title, as available. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to describe associations between SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) quartile and geographic region with female gender representation. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 the bottom quartile concordant with journal impact factor. Results and limitations: A total of 105 urology-focused journals were identified with 5989 total editorial board members, including 877 (14.6%) female, 5112 (85.4%) male, and two nonbinary persons. Female representation differed significantly by journal leadership position, SJR quartile, and geographic region. On the multivariate analysis of overall female representation, Q1 journals had higher odds of female representation than Q2 and Q3 journals, and had no significant difference from Q4 journals. Additionally, compared with Western Europe, North American journals had 78% higher odds while Asiatic journals had 50% lower odds of female representation. This study is limited by the inability to account for outside factors that lead to invitation or acceptance of journal leadership positions. Conclusions: Contemporary female leadership at urology journals is about six times less common than male leadership across all journals, although trends in their proportion were noted when assessed by journal quartile and region. Addressing this gender imbalance represents an important step toward achieving gender equity in the field of urology. Patient summary: In this study, we looked at the gender balance of academic journal leaders who serve as gatekeepers for sharing urologic research with the public. We found that the most prestigious journals and those in western countries tended to have the highest female representation. We hope that these findings help the academic community recognize and improve gender representation. © 2022 European Association of Urology