PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaSubject: search.filters.subject.Retrospective Studies

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Merriman, Rebekah
    ;
    Galizia, Ilaria
    ;
    Tanaka, Sonja
    ;
    Sheffel, Ashley
    ;
    Buse, Kent
    INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    h-Index and Academic Rank by Gender Among Breast Surgery Fellowship Faculty Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Radford, Diane M.
    ;
    Parangi, Sareh
    ;
    Tu, Chao
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Equity Imbalance in Cardiology Scientific Sessions in the Americas Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Burgos, Lucrecia María
    ;
    Farina, Juan
    ;
    Sauce Perez, Ana Laura
    ;
    Ortiz Lopez, Hector Isaac Alejando
    ;
    Gupta, Shyla Devi
    Women remain largely under-represented in cardiology worldwide. This is especially reflected in scientific sessions where panelists have a male preponderant representation. The amount of gender equity in cardiology during scientific activities in the American continent is unknown. The objective was to compare gender distribution of invited panelists in cardiology scientific sessions across the Americas during the period 2019-2020. A retrospective analysis of the cardiology scientific sessions held in North, Central, and South America was conducted. Sessions published on the official site and social networks of the national cardiology societies from January 1, 2019 to August 10, 2020 were included. Gender distribution and all-male panels were compared according to geographic regions, year, roles in the panel, and the main topics of the session. Seven hundred fifty-two scientific sessions were analyzed, with 3786 participants. The median participation of women was 20% (IQR 0%-37.5%). Specifically, the statistics reflected a female participation of 25% (IQR 0%-43.6%) in North America, 12.5% (IQR 0%-43%) in Central America and 10% (IQR 0%-33.3%) in South America (P < 0.0001). Women participation in the panels was different according to the main topic of the session (P < 0.0001), with higher proportions in topics such as cardiovascular diseases in women, congenital heart disease and cardio oncology. The frequency of all-male panels was 36.8% (CI95% 33.3-40.1), and it increased over time (2019: 30.9% vs 2020: 40.3%; P = 0.012). There is gender inequity in cardiology scientific sessions held in different regions of the Americas, with low participation of women especially in interventionist panels and leadership roles.