PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.South AmericaSubject: search.filters.subject.Leadership

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Evolution of Female Leadership in MedicineBibliometric Analysis and Evaluation of the Last 50 Years Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Mendoza, C.S.
    ;
    Gomez, A.P.B.
    ;
    Tobar, V.
    ;
    Carvajal, L.C.
    ;
    Vega, J.
    Objective Perform a biometrical analysis of female leadership in medicine, in order to know the actual perspective and guide future research. Materials and Methods: A retrospective descriptive bibliometric analysis of the literature available in MEDLINE was performed in relation to the leadership of female physicians from 1973 to 2019, through MEDLINE database, using GoPubmed and FABUMED. The following strategy was deployed: ("Leadership"[Mesh]) AND "Physicians, Women"[Mesh] (1973:2019[dp]). Original articles, journal articles, essays, scientific reports and reviews were included to analyze all related indexed literature. To obtain the impact factor (FI), the Journal Citation Reports (7) 2017/2018 of the journals found was used to estimate the quality of each one of them. Results A total of 310 references were found in 139 published journals, 71.2% were original articles; the remaining 22% were reviews. There was a 11.9% increase in publications from 1996 to 2019. The journals with the highest rate of publications were: Academic Medicine and J Womens Health (Larchmt) with 7.7% and 7.1%. Countries with the highest number of publications were United States with 66 (56%), and United Kingdom with 10 (8.6%). Latin America has four publications, while Colombia has none. Conclusion Female leadership in the medical field and the publications regarding this subject have increased in the last decades, mainly in developed countries. Latin America has to make significant efforts to produce more publications in journals with high impact factor, in order to close the gender gap in the medical field. © 2021 Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in ecology and zoology. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Salerno, Patricia E.
    ;
    Páez-Vacas, Mónica
    ;
    Guayasamin, Juan M.
    ;
    Stynoski, Jennifer L.
    Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts-especially by male senior authors-are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in multiple sclerosis research and leadership: A Colombian perspective Open PDF 
    (Frontiers Media S. A., 2022)
    Casallas-Vanegas, A.
    ;
    Guío-Sánchez, C.
    ;
    Reyes-Mantilla, M.I.
    ;
    Restrepo-Aristizábal, C.
    ;
    Navas-Granados, A.
    Background: The neurological academic field is an illustrative example of persistent gender-related disparities reflected in compensation, funding, leadership, promotion, publishing, and recognition. Several studies indicate that neurology is one of the most underrepresented specialties with female physicians as first authors, but also has one of the highest gender payment gaps. Neglecting the role of women in academic leadership positions hinders the visibility and recognition of research and leadership in multiple sclerosis (MS). Increasing diversity within academia has positive effects, such as widening focus and expanding the plurality of research outputs. The gender gap and visibility of female MS clinicians and researchers remains an unexplored research topic in our country despite the rising number of female neurologists. Objective: This study aims to establish the gender distribution between researchers and clinical neurologists in multiple sclerosis in Colombia and raise awareness about gender disparities in this area. Methods: We applied a cross-sectional survey study of Colombian neurologists and neurology residents currently members of the Colombian Neurology Association. Mean and standard deviation (SD) were used for quantitative variables and frequency for qualitative variables. To evaluate the influence of gender, logarithmic regression was used. Data were analyzed in SPSS 26. Results: A total of 201 participants agreed to complete the survey, most of whom were female (n = 135, 67.2%). All the Colombian regions were represented in the survey. Of those surveyed, 31.5% (n = 64) had an interest in demyelinating diseases and MS, of which 46.8% (n = 30) were female. Of the women with MS training, only 50% (n =5) had more than three publications as the first author of a scientific article compared to men (n = 5, 83%). After adjusting the number of publications by gender, there were no significant differences between men and women (median 2.0[2, 1.21] vs. 2[2, 0.5], p = 0.904). However, only 16.6% (n = 5) of women had a visible academic, leadership, or teaching position compared with men 75.7% (n = 25). When adjusting the salary income by gender, we found a statistically significant difference between women and men (median 2.0 [5, 1.47] vs. 3 [5, 1.65], p = 0.006). Women in MS earned between USD 2,500 and 3,800 per month; while men earned between USD 3,800 to 5,070. Conclusion: Despite a higher number of female neurologists trained in MS in Colombia, our data suggest considerable differences and gender gaps with regard to diverse opportunities at the academic, salary promotion, leadership, teaching, and recognition levels between male and female MS neurologists. Copyright © 2022 Casallas-Vanegas, Guío-Sánchez, Reyes-Mantilla, Restrepo-Aristizábal, Navas-Granados, Guerrero-Gómez and Zuluaga.
  • 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.