PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in radiology: gender diversity is not a metric-it is a tool for excellence Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Kubik-Huch, Rahel A.
    ;
    Vilgrain, Valérie
    ;
    Krestin, Gabriel P.
    ;
    Reiser, Maximilian F.
    ;
    Attenberger, Ulrike I.
    Women in Focus: Be Inspired was a unique programme held at the 2019 European Congress of Radiology that was structured to address a range of topics related to gender and healthcare, including leadership, mentoring and the generational progression of women in medicine. In most countries, women constitute substantially fewer than half of radiologists in academia or private practice despite frequently accounting for at least half of medical school enrolees. Furthermore, the proportion of women decreases at higher academic ranks and levels of leadership, a phenomenon which has been referred to as a "leaky pipeline". Gender diversity in the radiologic workplace, including in academic and leadership positions, is important for the present and future success of the field. It is a tool for excellence that helps to optimize patient care and research; moreover, it is essential to overcome the current shortage of radiologists. This article reviews the current state of gender diversity in academic and leadership positions in radiology internationally and explores a wide range of potential reasons for gender disparities, including the lack of role models and mentorship, unconscious bias and generational changes in attitudes about the desirability of leadership positions. Strategies for both individuals and institutions to proactively increase the representation of women in academic and leadership positions are suggested. KEY POINTS: • Gender-diverse teams perform better. Thus, gender diversity throughout the radiologic workplace, including in leadership positions, is important for the current and future success of the field. • Though women now make up roughly half of medical students, they remain underrepresented among radiology trainees, faculty and leaders. • Factors leading to the gender gap in academia and leadership positions in Radiology include a lack of role models and mentors, unconscious biases, other societal barriers and generational changes.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there a gender gap in Portuguese cardiology research? A review of data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Timóteo, A.T.
    A gender gap is apparent in several professional areas, including in medicine and particularly in the cardiovascular field. We present a brief review of the topic and we analyze data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology regarding female authorship. © 2020
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Composition and Trends of Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia Editorial Board Membership: A 33-Year Analysis, 1987-2019 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Pagel, Paul S.
    ;
    Freed, Julie K.
    ;
    Lien, Cynthia A.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist in the vast majority of specialties including anesthesiology. If a similar lack of gender parity exists in cardiothoracic anesthesiology is unknown. The authors examined the gender composition and trends of the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) editorial board from the initial year of its publication (1987) to 2019. The authors tested the hypothesis that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history, but women are underrepresented compared with the percentage of those currently practicing academic cardiothoracic anesthesia in the United States (US). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Internet analysis. PARTICIPANTS: All members of the JCVA editorial board, 1987-2019. INTERVENTIONS: The JCVA editor-in-chief, the associate editor-in-chief, associate editors, section editors, and general editors on the board were extracted from the masthead of a single issue from each calendar year. The years were divided into quartiles (1987-1995, 1996-2003, 2004-2011, and 2012-2019) to collect representative samples of editorial board composition for analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2,797 members of the JCVA editorial board were positively identified (2,477 [88.6%] men; 310 [11.1%] women); 10 (0.3%) editors could not be identified. Four hundred and fourteen associate and section editors were recorded (men 360 [87.0%], women 54 [13.0%]). There were also 2,353 general editors (2,087 [88.7%] men; 256 [10.9%] women). The total number of JCVA board members, associate and section editors, and general editors progressively increased from 1987 to 1995 to 2012 to 2019. The percentage of women serving on the editorial board increased from 2.5% to 15.8%. Increases in the proportion of female general editors from 2.9% to 16.2% were responsible for this overall increase. A gender gap between the percentage of female first authors (data obtained from a previous publication) and editorial board members was observed in each quartile. Editorial board composition was also different than last author distribution in 1987 to 1995 and 2012 to 2019, but not the other 2 time periods. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history. Nevertheless, women continue to be underrepresented on the JCVA board compared with the percentage of US female academic cardiothoracic anesthesiologists, and gender gaps between first and last authorship and board composition also persist.
  • 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 disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Cevik, Muge
    ;
    Haque, Syed Arefinul
    ;
    Manne-Goehler, Jennifer
    ;
    Kuppalli, Krutika
    ;
    Sax, Paul E.
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials. METHODS: We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/. RESULTS: Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.