PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • 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,
    Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Lail, Achint
    ;
    Ding, Jeffrey
    ;
    Leyva, Brayden K.
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Nakae, Sunny
    OBJECTIVE: Achieving gender equity in academic medicine is not only a matter of social justice but also necessary in promoting an innovative and productive academic community. The purpose of this study was to assess gender distribution in dual MD/PhD academic programme faculty members across North America. METHODS: Academic metrics were analysed to quantify the relative career success of academic faculty members in MD/PhD programmes. Measured parameters included academic and leadership ranks along with nominal research factors such as peer-reviewed research publications, H-index, citation number and years of active research. RESULTS: Χ² analysis revealed a statistically significant (p<0.0001, χ²=114.5) difference in the gender distribution of faculty and leadership across North American MD/PhD programmes. Men held 74.2% of full professor positions, 64% of associate professor positions, 59.4% of assistant professor positions and 62.8% of lecturer positions. Moreover, men occupied a larger share of faculty leadership roles with a statistically significant disparity across all ranks (p<0.001, χ²=20.4). A higher proportion of men held positions as department chairs (79.6%), vice chairs (69.1%) and programme leads (69.4%). CONCLUSION: Gender disparity was prevalent in the MD/PhD programmes throughout North America with women achieving a lower degree of professional stature than men. Ultimately, steps must be taken to support women faculty to afford them better opportunities for academic and professional advancement.
  • 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,
    Scholarly Productivity Among Academic Foot and Ankle Surgeons Affiliated With US Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Residency and Fellowship Training Programs Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Casciato, Dominick J.
    ;
    Cravey, Kimberly S.
    ;
    Barron, Ian M.
    Foot and ankle surgeons practicing within academic medicine balance clinical or surgical training, course instruction, administrative duties, and research. Along with clinical skills and patient volume, promotion within academia often relies on scholarly productivity. Previous research across specialties described this productivity using variables including publications, citations, and the h-index, a scale that quantifies the productivity and citation impact of published works, among academic ranks. As no studies examine the scholarly impact of foot and ankle surgeons with academic appointments, this study aimed to analyze the productivity and gender differences present in this specialty. A systematic review of academic-affiliated foot and ankle surgery residencies and fellowships was performed; and faculty members were screened for sex, academic rank, publication history, citations, h-index, and years in practice. Among 234 programs reviewed, 44 programs allowed for the analysis of 106 practitioners with an academic rank eligible for analysis. Overall, 78.3% of practitioners were male with the most common rank being assistant professor. Men published more documents and maintained higher citations as well as longer years in practice, and this was significant (p < .05). A significant difference was exhibited among all academic ranks (p ≤ .001). Multivariate regression revealed the publication history and years in practice are strongly correlated with the h-index of providers (p ≤ .001). Foot and ankle surgeons practicing in an academic setting may use the results of this study to gauge their productivity and identify benchmarks that similar providers have met at varying academic ranks.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Agaronnik, Nicole
    ;
    Xiong, Grace X.
    ;
    Uzosike, Akachimere
    ;
    Crawford, Alexander M.
    ;
    Lightsey, Harry M.
    BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion. RESULTS: The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.