PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USASubject: search.filters.subject.Children

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Lufler, Rebecca S.
    ;
    McNulty, Margaret A.
    The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Krukowski, Rebecca A.
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Cardel, Michelle I.
    Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Williams, Wadsworth A.
    ;
    Garvey, Katherine L.
    ;
    Goodman, Denise M.
    ;
    Lauderdale, Diane S.
    ;
    Ross, Lainie Friedman
    OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Increases in female academic productivity and female mentorship highlight sustained progress in previously identified neurosurgical gender disparities Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Taha, Birra
    ;
    Sadda, Praneeth
    ;
    Winston, Graham
    ;
    Odigie, Eseosa
    ;
    Londono, Cristina
    OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was performed to understand disparities in the representation of female authorship within the neurosurgical literature and implications for career advancement of women in neurosurgery. METHODS: Author names for articles published in 16 of the top neurosurgical journals from 2002 to 2019 were obtained from MEDLINE. The gender of each author was determined using automated prediction methods. Publication trends were compared over time and across subdisciplines. Female authorship was also compared to the proportionate composition of women in the field over time. RESULTS: The metadata obtained from 16 major neurosurgical journals yielded 66,546 research articles. Gender was successfully determined for 96% (127,809/133,578) of first and senior authors, while the remainder (3.9%) were unable to be determined through prediction methods. Across all years, 13.3% (8826) of articles had female first authorship and 9.1% (6073) had female senior authorship. Female first authorship increased significantly over time from 5.8% in 2002 to 17.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Female senior authorship also increased significantly over time, from 5.5% in 2002 to 12.0% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The journals with the highest proportions of female first authors and senior authors were the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (33.5%) and the Asian Journal of Neurosurgery (23.8%), respectively. Operative Neurosurgery had the lowest fraction of female first (12.4%) and senior (4.7%) authors. There was a significant difference between the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical trainees and the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical first (p < 0.001) and senior (p < 0.001) authors. Articles were also more likely to have a female first author if the senior author of the article was female (OR 2.69, CI 2.52-2.86; p < 0.001). From 1944 to 2019, the Journal of Neurosurgery showed a steady increase in female first and senior authorship, with a plateau beginning in the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: Large meta-analysis techniques have the potential to effectively leverage large amounts of bibliometric data to quantify the representation of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The proportion of female authors in major neurosurgical journals has steadily increased. However, the rate of increase in female senior authorship has lagged behind the rate of increase in first authorship, indicating a disparity in academic advancement in women in neurosurgery.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Glass Ceiling in Hand Surgery: Publication Trends by Gender
    (2022)
    Bram, Joshua T.
    ;
    Magee, Lacey C.
    ;
    Parambath, Andrew
    ;
    Bauer, Andrea S.
    ;
    Lawler, Ericka A.
    Background: Women are frequently underrepresented across surgical subspecialties and may face barriers to academic advancement. Abstracts presented at American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting (ASSH-AM) highlight some of the top research in hand surgery. We sought to explore differences in abstract characteristics and publication rates based on senior author gender.Though there have been increasing efforts at inclusivity in orthopedic and plastic surgery, women face several barriers to entering the field, publish less frequently, and are underrepresented in leadership positions. Understanding the stages at which discrepancies in research productivity exist may help to address these challenges. Methods: Abstracts from the 2010-2017 ASSH-AMs were reviewed to determine basic characteristics. Author gender was determined through both a search of institutional websites for gender-specific pronouns and inference of gender based on first name. Subsequent full manuscript publications corresponding to the abstracts were identified through a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar. Results: A total of 560/620 (90.3%) abstracts from 2010-2017 had an identifiable senior author gender (14.5% female). No differences were noted between male- and female-authored abstracts regarding study design including sample size or level of evidence. Female senior authors were more likely than males to author abstracts focused on pediatrics (19.8% vs 9.4%, p=0.01) and were more likely to collaborate with female first authors (41.3% vs 20.0%, p<0.01). Abstract publication rates were lower for female senior authors versus male senior authors (61.7% vs 74.5%, p=0.02). Conclusion: The number of abstracts with female senior authors had similar representation to the membership proportion of women in the ASSH. There were few differences in abstract characteristics based on senior author gender, though senior authors tend to collaborate with investigators of the same gender. Abstracts authored by females were published 13% less frequently overall, meriting further exploration. Level of Evidence: III.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.