PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences Among Academic Pediatric Radiology Faculty in the United States and Canada Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Counter, William B.
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Castillo, Mauricio
    ;
    White, Ammie M.
    OBJECTIVE: It is currently unknown whether efforts in recent years to create equal opportunities for female faculty in academic medicine have succeeded. We looked at faculty members in academic pediatric radiology departments across the United States and Canada to assess for evidence of gender disparities and differences in academic performance between males and females. METHODS: The analysis included diagnostic radiology programs across the United States and Canada, as specified by the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online) and the Canadian Resident Matching Service website. The Scopus database was used to retrieve the H-index, number of publications, and number of citations for each faculty member. We examined the distribution of male and female faculty members across geographical regions, academic ranks, and leadership roles. Academic performance was also compared. RESULTS: Across all regions and academic ranks, disparities exist between the number of male and female faculty members. The greatest disparity was found amongst the professor rank, where more than 70% of positions were occupied by males. Female professors were found to demonstrate similar levels of academic performance compared to their male counterparts, although this parity was not observed amongst assistant and associate professors. CONCLUSION: Women occupied almost half (46.6%) of the total academic pediatric radiology workforce, despite having been previously shown to make up only 21% of radiologists. However, gender disparities currently exist among academic pediatric radiology faculty, with a significantly higher percentage of men in pediatric radiology faculty positions. Women, however, currently occupy a greater percentage of leadership positions compared to men, even though the majority of senior academic ranks are held by men.
  • 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.