PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.UrologyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Engaging and Empowering Future Female Surgeons: Development of the Medical Student Section of the Society of Women in Urology Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-10)
    Booher, Allison G.
    ;
    Vereecken, Sasha J.
    ;
    Kim, Erin
    ;
    Penmatcha, Neharika
    ;
    Aponte, Alexandra
    OBJECTIVE: To describe a replicable model for a large-scale, cross-institutional, and student-driven initiative to promote gender equity within surgical fields. METHODS: To address the lack of a national infrastructure to support female medical students pursuing careers in Urology, a historically male-dominated specialty, the society of women in urology (SWIU) established its medical student section, called SWIUdents, as a student-led initiative to offer mentorship, education, and networking resources for future female urologists. In 2022, SWIUdents convened its first medical student leadership board, comprised of two co-chairs and four subcommittees focused on membership, program implementation, mentorship, and community relations. SWIUdents membership was open to medical students of all gender identities, and recruitment for the organization took place via official SWIU communications, social media, and word of mouth. RESULTS: As of April 2025, there are 319 SWIUdents members, 195 of which are current medical students, representing all regional sections of the American Urological Association (AUA), as well as international medical students. In the 2024 to 2025 academic year, SWIUdents paired 87 medical students with resident or faculty members in Urology. SWIUdents also maintains an active social media presence and offers a broad array of programming, with robust attendance at monthly webinars and journal clubs. CONCLUSIONS: This paper outlines the development and infrastructure of SWIUdents, a national, student-driven model which may be replicated by other specialty organizations aiming to engage and empower women and other groups underrepresented within their respective field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Lack of Gender Diversity Among Systematic Reviews Authors in the Urological Literature (1998-2021) Open PDF 
    (WoltersKluwer, 2022)
    Shish, Lane
    ;
    Srikanth, Pooja
    ;
    Gandhi, Vardhil
    ;
    Wang, Hill
    ;
    Edgerton, Zachary
    Purpose: Gender equity is a key performance metric in research, including systematic reviews, and is increasingly noted in publications. We performed this study to assess gender parity in scientific authorship of systematic reviews published in the urological literature. Materials and Methods: We identified all published systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention in 5 major urological journals (The Journal of Urology®, European Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology) from 1998 to 2021. We determined gender of first, second, corresponding, and any author as a binary variable (woman or man) using a predefined algorithm. Results: We included 523 systematic reviews. The main journal contributors were European Urology (32.6%), BJU International (22.0%), and The Journal of Urology (19.5%). Slightly more than half (51.8%) of reviews included at least 1 woman coauthor, 37.5% did not, and in 10.7% it was unclear. First, second, and corresponding authors were women in 13.7%, 12.4%, and 4.7%, respectively, and the median number of women contributors was 1 (interquartile range 0-2). Women-first authorship for the time period 1998-2012 was 13.0% (P = .139), and senior authorship was 5.0% (P = .270). In 2013-2016 it was 11.0% and 4.1%, and in 2017-2021 it increased somewhat to 16.5% and 5.1% (P = .270), respectively. Conclusions: The number of women involved in systematic reviews is low and has not improved over time. Since scientific authorship is important for academic advancement, this finding may contribute to the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership positions. Efforts to improve gender diversity in urology should include more collaboration across genders.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there an editorial glass ceiling? Editorial leadership in nephrology and transplantation journals: A gender-based cross-sectional analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Scarlato, Rose-Marie
    ;
    Wyburn, Kate
    ;
    Wyld, Melanie L.
    AIM: Editors-in-Chief (EiC) play a key role as gatekeepers in academic medicine, often shaping research agendas. Women have historically been underrepresented in editorial leadership roles in academic medicine. The purpose of this study was to examine gender representation among EiC of contemporary transplantation and nephrology journals. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated gender disparities among EiC of transplantation and nephrology medical journals. The study population was drawn from journals in two subject categories (1) 'Transplantation' and (2) 'Urology and Nephrology' in the 2023 Journal Citation Reports. Binary gender classification (woman/man) was determined by the names/pronouns used to describe the EiC on the journal or institutional webpage. The primary outcome was the proportion of women EiC. Secondary outcome was the proportion of women EiC based on journal topic, location and metrics. Descriptive statistics were used. Gender differences were compared using students t-test or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 79 EiC were identified of which 16 (20%) were women and 63 (80%) were men (p < .001). Transplantation and nephrology journals had 21% and 20% women EiC, respectively. The proportion of women to men EiC was not impacted by journal category (p = .93), journal location (p = .61), journal impact factor (p = .71) or quartile (p = .59). CONCLUSION: There was a disparity in gender representation in EiC in nephrology and transplantation journals, with men holding 80% of all positions. These findings, among growing evidence of gender disparity, highlight a need for targeted efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among publications within international sexual medicine urology journals and the impact of blinding in the review process Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Burg, Madeleine L.
    ;
    Kohli, Priya
    ;
    Ha, Nhi
    ;
    Mora, Richard
    ;
    Kurup, Trisha
    BACKGROUND: While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals. AIM: We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process. METHODS: Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members. RESULTS: Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors. CONCLUSION: Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.