PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons Open PDF
(Academic Press Inc., 2016)
Mueller, C.M.
;
Gaudilliere, D.K.
;
Kin, C.
;
Menorca, R.
;
Girod, S.
Background Female surgeons have faced significant challenges to promotion over the past decades, with attrition rates supporting a lack of improvement in women's position in academia. We examine gender disparities in research productivity, as measured by the number of citations, publications, and h-indices, across six decades. Materials and methods The online profiles of full-time faculty members of surgery departments of three academic centers were reviewed. Faculty members were grouped into six cohorts by decade, based on year of graduation from medical school. Differences between men and women across cohorts as well as by academic rank were examined. Results The profiles of 978 surgeons (234 women and 744 men) were reviewed. The number of female faculty members in the institutions increased significantly over time, reaching the current percentage of 35.3%. Significant differences in number of articles published were noted at the assistant and full but not at the associate, professor level. Women at these ranks had fewer publications than men. Gender differences were also found in all age cohorts except among the most recent who graduated in the 2000s. The impact of publications, as measured by h-index and number of citations, was not consistently significantly different between the genders at any age or rank. Conclusions We identified a consistent gender disparity in the number of publications for female faculty members across a 60-year span. Although the youngest cohort, those who graduated in the 2000s, appeared to avoid the gender divide, our data indicate that overall women still struggle with productivity in the academic arena. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2023)
Kyarunts, M.
;
Michaelcheck, C.E.
;
Kobeissi, H.
;
Kallmes, D.F.
;
Agid, R.
Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
A gender gap in the next generation of physician-scientists: Medical student interest and participation in research Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2002)
Guelich, J.M.
;
Singer, B.H.
;
Castro, M.C.
;
Rosenberg, L.E.
Background: For 2 decades, the number of physician-scientists has not kept pace with the overall growth of the medical research community. Concomitantly, the number of women entering medical schools has increased markedly. We have explored the effect of the changing gender composition of medical schools on the present and future pipeline of young physician-scientists. Methods: We analyzed data obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute pertaining to the expressed research intentions or research participation of male and female medical students in the United States. Results: A statistically significant decline in the percentage of matriculating and graduating medical students-both men and women-who expressed strong research career intentions occurred during the decade between 1987 and 1997. Moreover, matriculating and graduating women were significantly less likely than men to indicate strong research career intentions. Each of these trends has been observed for medical schools overall and for research-intensive ones. Cohort data obtained by tracking individuals from matriculation to graduation revealed that women who expressed strong research career intentions upon matriculation were more likely than men to decrease their research career intentions during medical school. Medical student participation in research supported the gender gap identified by assessing research intentions. Female medical student participation in the Medical Scientist Training Program and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute/National Institutes of Health-sponsored Cloisters Program has increased but lags far behind the growth in the female population in medical schools. Conclusion: Three worrisome trends in the research career intentions and participation of the nation's medical students (a decade-long decline for both men and women, a large and persistent gender gap, and a negative effect of the medical school experience for women) presage a further decline in the physician-scientist pipeline unless they are reversed promptly and decisively.
Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank Open PDF
(2022)
Goswami, Abhishek K.
;
Kokabi, Nima
;
Khaja, Minhaj S.
;
Saad, Wael E.
;
Khaja, Akram
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.
Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Open PDF
(1995)
Tesch, B.J.
;
Wood, H.M.
;
Helwig, A.L.
;
Nattinger, A.B.
To assess possible explanations for the finding that the percentage of women medical school faculty members holding associate or full professor rank remains well below the percentage of men. —Cross-sectional survey of physician faculty of US medical schools using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database. —Surveyed were 153 women and 263 men first appointed between 1979 and 1981, matched for institutions of original faculty appointment. —Academic rank achieved, career preparation, academic resources at first appointment, familial responsibilities, and academic productivity. —After a mean of 11 years on a medical school faculty, 59% of women compared with 83% of men had achieved associate or full professor rank, and 5% of women compared with 23% of men had achieved full professor rank. Women and men reported similar preparation for an academic career, but women began their careers with fewer academic resources. The number of children was not associated with rank achieved. Women worked about 10% fewer hours per week and had authored fewer publications. After adjustment for productivity factors, women remained less likely to be associate or full professors (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.66) or to achieve full professor rank (adjusted OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63). Based on the AAMC database, 50% of both women and men originally appointed as faculty members between 1979 and 1981 had left academic medicine by 1991. —Women physician medical school faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Gender differences in rank achieved are not explained by productivity or by differential attrition from academic medicine. (JAMA. 1995;273:1022-1025). © 1995, Jama, All rights reserved.
Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity Open PDF
(2018)
Qamar, S.R.
;
Khurshid, K.
;
Jalal, S.
;
Bancroft, L.
;
Munk, P.L.
Introduction: Research productivity is one of the few quintessential gauges that North American academic radiology departments implement to determine career progression. The rationale of this study is to quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and academic advancements in the musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology to account for emerging trends in workforce diversity. Methods: Radiology residency programs enlisted in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) and International Skeletal Society (ISS) were searched for academic faculty to generate the database for gender and academic profiles of MSK radiologists. Bibliometric data was collected using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives, and analyzed using Stata version 14.2. Results: Among 274 MSK radiologists in North America, 190 (69.34%) were men and 84 (30.66%) were women, indicating a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 6.34; p value = 0.042). The available number of female assistant professors (n = 50) was more than half of the male assistant professors (n = 88), this ratio however, plummeted at higher academic ranks, with only one-fourth of women (n = 11) professors compared to men (n = 45). The male MSK radiologist had 1.31 times the odds of having a higher h-index, keeping all other variables constant. Conclusions: The trend of gender disparity exists in MSK radiology with significant underrepresentation of women in top tiers of academic hierarchy. Even with comparable h-indices, at the lower academic ranks, a lesser number of women are promoted relative to their male colleagues. Further studies are needed to investigate the degree of influence research productivity has, in determining academic advancement of MSK radiologists. © 2017, ISS.
A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades Open PDF
(2009)
Feramisco, J.D.
;
Leitenberger, J.J.
;
Redfern, S.I.
;
Bian, A.
;
Xie, X.-J.
Background: Despite a dramatic influx of female dermatologists during the last 30 years, women in academic dermatology departments remain relatively clustered in junior faculty positions. Research in other specialties showing a disparity in the academic productivity of women has led to many hypotheses regarding factors that may place them at a competitive disadvantage. It is unknown, however, whether similar differences in academic productivity might also serve as barriers to advancement in dermatology, or whether any productivity gap actually exists in this specialty that experienced a more substantial entry of women. Objective: Because publication in peer-reviewed journals is one of the core measures of academic productivity used in the promotion process, we evaluated trends in the prevalence of female authorship in top dermatology journals during the last 3 decades. Methods: We conducted an observational study of trends in the sex distribution of US authors in 3 prestigious general dermatology journals (in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006) and 3 subspecialty dermatology journals (in 2006 only). Journals were chosen based on published impact factors and citation half-lives. Results: During the last 3 decades, the proportion of women authoring manuscripts in the 3 major general dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% of US-affiliated first authors (P < .001) and from 6.2% to 31% of US-affiliated senior authors (P < .001). Separate analyses by journal and by article type showed similar increases. The prevalence of female authors in subspecialty journals in 2006 was slightly more variable. Limitations: Although the publications selected for this study capture many of the most respected US journals in dermatology, they may not be representative of all journals in which dermatologists publish. Conclusions: Female dermatologists are authoring publications in growing numbers that match or exceed their prevalence in the academic and overall workforce. This suggests that other factors (differences in productivity outside of the publishing arena, differences in job descriptions or opportunities, differences in career aspirations, a lack of institutional support or flexibility, or gender bias) may be associated with the ongoing reduced advancement of women to senior academic dermatology ranks relative to their male colleagues, and further research is warranted to explore these possibilities. © 2009 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.
Gender Disparities in Academic Productivity and Promotion Among Endocrine Surgery Faculty Open PDF
(Academic Press Inc., 2022)
Ammann, A.M.
;
Delman, A.M.
;
Bethi, M.
;
Turner, K.M.
;
Sedaghat, A.R.
Introduction: Academic rank and metrics such as total publications (pubs) and H-index are indicators to measure academic achievement. This study aims to determine whether there are gender differences in academic productivity or faculty appointments among endocrine surgeons in the United States. Methods: A database was generated from the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) website. Community or academic practice was designated by institution affiliation and faculty appointment. Academic metrics, including pubs, H-index, and weighted-RCR (relative citation ratio), were obtained from public databases. Results: A total of 258 AAES members were affiliated with an academic institution. The majority were men (58%). Overall, men in endocrine surgery had higher academic metrics: pubs (56.0 [26-134], 23.0 [11-56], P < 0.0001), H-index (19.0 [11-35], 9.0 [5-21], P < 0.0001), weighted-RCR (63.5 [22-193], 24.1 [8-74], P < 0.005) and rank (associate professor or professor, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis accounting for time in practice found no difference in total publications, weighted RCR, or faculty appointments between genders in practice for 0-5 y. However, among surgeons in practice for 6-10 y, men had higher academic metrics (pubs: 31.0 [16-79], 18.5 [9-33]; RCR: 46.0 [14-102], 13.3 [9-34]) and faculty appointments (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: There are gender disparities in academic productivity and faculty appointment among US endocrine surgeons. While junior faculty show no gender differences in most indicators of academic productivity or rank, men with 6-10 y in practice have higher average academic metrics and rank. Whether the absence of gender disparities among junior faculty is a sustainable reflection of recent efforts to encourage equal mentorship and professional opportunities or whether disparities will manifest as faculty progress remains to be determined. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results