PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • 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,
    Gender differences in the publication rate among breast imaging radiologists in the United States and Canada Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Shah, S.
    ;
    Ahmadi, M.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Carlos, R.
    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether academic achievement differs by gender among breast imaging radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined the gender disparity in academic breast radiology using several parameters, including the h-index, the number of publications, and the number of citations. We also inspected gender disparity in academic ranks and leadership ranks. RESULTS. The research productivity of female breast imagers was found to be significantly lower than that of male colleagues across all academic ranks (p < 0.001). In addition, no correlation was noted between female gender and leadership positions (p = 0.57), despite the fact that women dominate the specialty of breast imaging. CONCLUSION. The number of publications by female radiologists has risen steadily over time; however, a significant gender disparity is seen in scholarly productivity. �© American Roentgen Ray Society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Goyanes, Manuel
    ;
    Herrero, Esperanza
    ;
    de-Marcos, Luis
    Women researchers have been shown to be underrepresented in science, especially among the most productive scholars. This is especially relevant in the social sciences and humanities fields, where gender parity is closer, but disparities among top scholars are still pronounced. The gender gap in the field of communication has been explored from several approaches, but studies focusing on gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index are rather scarce. Drawing upon data retrieved from SciVal, we conducted a comparative study of the top 500 and top 100 most productive scholars (N = 5000) for each of the ten most productive countries in communication research in the 2019-2022 period: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, Germany, India, Australia, Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands. The results indicate a consistent underrepresentation of women, particularly among the top 500, across countries. Despite women being cited more frequently than men in some countries over shorter time frames, a gender bias persists favoring men, particularly when considering the h-index. All in all, our study shows that, despite hints of gender equality in citation patterns, the gender gap still constitutes a structural part of the field of communication when addressing gender representation in research productivity and long-term dynamics of research impact.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Academic Medicine Leadership: Has Anything Changed in 25 Years? Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Rochon, Paula A.
    ;
    Davidoff, Frank
    ;
    Levinson, Wendy
    Over the past 25 years, the number of women graduating from medical schools in the United States and Canada has increased dramatically to the point where roughly equal numbers of men and women are graduating each year. Despite this growth, women continue to face challenges in moving into academic leadership positions. In this Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from their own careers relevant to women's careers in academic medicine, including aspects of leadership, recruitment, editorship, promotion, and work-life balance. They provide brief synopses of current literature on the personal and social forces that affect women's participation in academic leadership roles. They are persuaded that a deeper understanding of these realities can help create an environment in academic medicine that is generally more supportive of women's participation, and that specifically encourages women in medicine to take on academic leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.