PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.EuropeSubject: search.filters.subject.Europe

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female author representation differs between journals from the United States of America, Europe, and Asia: a 10-year comparison of five medical disciplines Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Molwitz, I.
    ;
    Keller, S.
    ;
    Wolf-Baldauf, L.
    ;
    Ozga, A.-K.
    ;
    Nguyen, T.-A.
    To provide information for targeted support of female scientists, the objective of this study was to evaluate how female authors are represented in journals of five medical disciplines with varying rates of female physicians from the United States of America (USA), Europe, and Asia. For this retrospective bibliometric study 15 representative gynecologic, pediatric, radiologic, urologic, and surgical journals from the USA, Europe, and Asia were selected from the Web of Science database. From these, all n = 24182 publications of the years 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 were included. Gender and affiliations were assigned to first and senior authors using a software (Gender API, Passau, Germany), native speakers, and a web-based search. For statistics mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression were applied. In pediatrics, radiology, and urology, highest female first and senior author shares were consistently found in journals from the USA. In European journals proportions across all disciplines tripled (odds ratio 2.96 [95% CI 2.60–3.37], P <.0001). Asian journals showed three-times fewer female authorships than journals from the USA or Europe and the smallest increase (1.36 [1.11–1.66], P =.0026). Compared to the proportion of female physicians within each specialty, female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals and female senior authors in journals of all regions. In journals from the USA most female authors originated from institutes within the USA (36.2%), in European journals from the USA (21.1%) or Europe (21.7%). Women from Asian institutes were worst represented in journals of all regions with lowest rates in Asian journals (9.4%). In conclusion female first authors remained underrepresented in Asian journals, female senior authors and women from Asian institutes in journals from all regions. Programs for gender equality in science are thus particularly necessary to support female senior authors, for Asian journals, and women from Asian institutes. © 2022, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Misra, Vaidehi
    ;
    Safi, Frozan
    ;
    Brewerton, Kathryn A.
    ;
    Wu, Wei
    ;
    Mason, Robin
    OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women Underrepresentation in R&I: A Sector Program Assessment of the Contribution of Gender Equality Policies in Research and Innovation. Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Striebing, Clemens
    ;
    Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia
    ;
    Palmén, Rachel
    ;
    Holzinger, Florian
    ;
    Nagy, Beata
    Despite decades of efforts to achieve gender equality in research and innovation (R&I), all EU member states still face remarkable difficulties in driving forward the development of their innovation system while at the same time improving gender equality by using all the available research potential. In this paper we focus on the development of the share of women researchers in four national innovation systems, i.e. in Austria, Denmark, Hungary and Spain in the time period 2005-2015. The four selected cases represent countries with significant differences in their innovation capacity, gender regimes and progress of gender equality in R&I. A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is carried out to conduct a sector program evaluation based on statistical data and qualitative studies to understand the dynamic development of the proportion of women researchers. The study aims to provide insights into the aggregated gender equality interventions and policies implemented in the four countries studied and their contributions to the development of the proportion of women scientists at the structural level. The analysis reveals that the development of the share of women researchers during the studied period has been particularly influenced by contextual factors, namely the relative size of the business enterprise sector and the share of women among holders of tertiary education. While this is the case, it is found that gender equality interventions need to be more widespread and more effectively designed to be a strong contributing factor to an increasing representation of women in R&I.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Addressing gender inequality in science: The multifaceted challenge of assessing impact Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Schmidt, E.K.
    ;
    Cacace, M.
    The analysis of the reasons behind the persistent under-representation of women in senior positions in science is well-developed. In contrast, the assessment of the impact of policies addressing the problem suffers from a lack of evidence and an oversimplification of approaches. Based on the assessment of 125 programs for gender equality implemented in research organizations in Europe, North America, and Australia, we argue that holistic approaches and multidimensional frames of reference are needed for impact assessment, also to improve program design and policy. Our analysis shows that the problem of gender inequality is rooted in so many and interrelated factors that program impact assessment has to be multidimensional and complex. Having a conceptual approach grounded in the notion of complexity as a point of departure, the article presents an innovative impact assessment tool, pointing to effective ways to assess the impact of gender equality programs. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A glass ceiling within academic general practice in Western Europe: Career-inhibiting and -facilitating factors for female general practitioners Open PDF 
    (2006)
    De Jong, G.M.
    ;
    Lagro-Janssen, A.L.M.
    WONCA 2004 in Orlando, Florida, provided the stage for a symposium on “Challenges for Women in Family Medicine”, organized by the WONCA Working Party on Women and Family Medicine. This international symposium provided a review of what women family physicians are doing to confront challenges in education, clinical practice, academia, organizations and leadership Citation[1]. Representing Europe, the results of a unique study on the latter subject were presented.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity in academic performance in anaesthesiology in the Benelux Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Boerman, L.M.
    ;
    Bullens, A.J.M.
    ;
    van der Wal, R.A.B.
  • 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.