PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaSubject: search.filters.subject.Adult

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Beyond the Scores: Gendered Interpretations of Emergency Medicine Resident Assessments of Interdependent Performances Open PDF 
    (Ubiquity Press, Ltd., 2025-08-21)
    El Galad, Asil
    ;
    Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
    ;
    Panza, Michael
    ;
    Ng, Kristen
    ;
    Lingard, Lorelei
    PURPOSE: In medicine, gender bias and gendered language within assessments of individual performance are well established. Recent shifts toward assessing interdependence (the ability to work supportively and collaboratively within teams) demand we understand how gender bias and gendered language influence assessments. In exploring how faculty assess residents' interdependent performances, this study evaluated how gender-presentation influences faculty raters' assessments of residents' interdependence in Emergency Medicine (EM). METHODS: Using a multiple-methods (an experimental within-subjects study with follow-up interviews), 18 EM faculty from Canada and the United States assessed scripted videos of identical clinical encounters acted by male- and female-presenting residents. Faculty assessed female residents via anonymous online surveys and, six months later, assessed male residents via follow-up interviews using the same clinical scenarios. After every clip, faculty completed entrustable professional activity (EPA) and Milestone ratings and provided narrative justifications. Statistical analyses were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to assess gender differences in EPA and Milestone scores. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring, gendered patterns in narrative justifications. RESULTS: Quantitative results revealed no gender differences in Milestone and EPA scores, except for the resuscitation entrustment rating, where male residents were rated less favorably (z = -3.09, p = 0.002). Qualitative findings uncovered subtle gender differences. For the same clinical performances, male residents were frequently described as leaders, while female residents as collaborative. Furthermore, male residents' help-seeking was framed as proactive, whereas female residents' help-seeking was indicative of lacking knowledge. Finally, bias was not consistent across genders: male leadership expectations could negatively flavor assessments of male collaborative performances. CONCLUSION: EPA and Milestone scores showed marginal gender-based differences, while narrative justifications reflected clear gendered expectations about residents' interdependence. These findings highlight the need for equity-oriented assessment practices that interrogate both the numbers and the narratives. As team-based competencies like interdependence become central to clinical training, ensuring that assessments reflect fair, unbiased interpretations are essential to supporting all learners equitably.
  • 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,
    Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Whitelaw, Sera
    ;
    Sullivan, Kristen
    ;
    Eliya, Yousif
    ;
    Alruwayeh, Mohammad
    ;
    Thabane, Lehana
    AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.