PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Misra, Vaidehi
    ;
    Safi, Frozan
    ;
    Brewerton, Kathryn A.
    ;
    Wu, Wei
    ;
    Mason, Robin
    OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Mastrorocco, Elisabetta
    ;
    Terrin, Maria
    ;
    Migliorisi, Giulia
    ;
    Masoni, Benedetta
    ;
    Farinola, Valeria
    BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Whitelaw, Sera
    ;
    Sullivan, Kristen
    ;
    Eliya, Yousif
    ;
    Alruwayeh, Mohammad
    ;
    Thabane, Lehana
    AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The landscape for women leaders in dental education, research, and practice Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Whelton, Helen
    ;
    Wardman, Margaret J.
    Following early limitations on women becoming educated in and practicing dentistry, the proportion of women enrolled in dental schools around the world has increased dramatically over the past decades. Dental schools have undergone a transformation from male dominance to almost equal numbers in the United States and female predominance in other countries including the United Kingdom. However, this change in student gender distribution has not been matched among academic leaders. Data from across the globe indicate a clear disproportion in favor of males in leadership positions in dentistry-and the more senior the position, the greater the imbalance. This article reviews the evolving changes in gender distribution across the landscape of dental education, research, and practice and some initiatives to address the gender imbalance in leadership. Such initiatives can help to ensure that, in the future, the profession benefits from the spectrum of influences brought to bear by the leadership of both women and men.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Addressing gender inequality in science: The multifaceted challenge of assessing impact Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Schmidt, E.K.
    ;
    Cacace, M.
    The analysis of the reasons behind the persistent under-representation of women in senior positions in science is well-developed. In contrast, the assessment of the impact of policies addressing the problem suffers from a lack of evidence and an oversimplification of approaches. Based on the assessment of 125 programs for gender equality implemented in research organizations in Europe, North America, and Australia, we argue that holistic approaches and multidimensional frames of reference are needed for impact assessment, also to improve program design and policy. Our analysis shows that the problem of gender inequality is rooted in so many and interrelated factors that program impact assessment has to be multidimensional and complex. Having a conceptual approach grounded in the notion of complexity as a point of departure, the article presents an innovative impact assessment tool, pointing to effective ways to assess the impact of gender equality programs. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of Authorship in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery: Women Remain Underrepresented Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Farooq, Ayesha
    ;
    Sahara, Kota
    ;
    Muneeb, Aeman
    ;
    Farooq, Khadija
    ;
    Tsilimigras, Diamantis I.
    INTRODUCTION: Given the need to increase female representation in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, as well as the need to increase the academic pipeline of women in this subspecialty, we sought to characterize the prevalence of female authorship in the HPB literature. In particular, the objective of the current study was to determine the proportion of women who published HPB research articles as first, second, or last author over the last decade. METHODS: All articles pertaining to hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery appearing in seven surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, HPB (Oxford), Surgery, and Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery) were reviewed for the years 2008 and 2018. Information on sex of author, country of author's institution, and article type was collected and entered into a computerized database. RESULTS: Among the 1473 index articles included in the final analytic cohort, 414 (28%) publications had a woman as the first or last author, while the vast majority (n = 1,059, 72%) had a man as the first or last author. The number of female first authors increased from 15.6% (n = 92/591) in 2008 to 25.7% (n = 227/882) in 2018 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of second (n = 123/536, 23.0% vs n = 214/869, 24.6%, p = 0.47) or last (n = 44/564, 7.8% vs n = 88/875, 10.1%, p = 0.15) authors. Women were more likely to publish papers appearing in medium-impact journals (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.88) and articles with a female author were more likely to be from a North American institution (referent: North America, Asia OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59 vs Europe OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87). CONCLUSION: Women first/last authors in HPB research articles have increased over the past 10 years from 22 to 32%. Women as last authors remain low, however, as only 1 in 10 papers had a senior woman author. These data should prompt HPB leaders to find solutions to the gap in female authorship including mentorship of young female researchers and surgeons.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Nationality Trends in Manuscripts Published in Prominent Gastroenterology Journals Between 1997 and 2017 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Bhatia, Shweta
    ;
    Cotton, Cary C.
    ;
    Kim, Erin
    ;
    Angle, Hannah
    ;
    Watts, Ariel E.
    BACKGROUND: Gender disparities remain in the field of gastroenterology (GI) despite the decreasing gender gap in the medical field overall. We sought to examine primary and last female authorship as a marker of academic opportunity and advancement to assess the proportion of women publishing in GI over 20 years (1997-2017). METHODS: In this observational study, we assessed the gender and nationality of primary and last authors of original research manuscripts in three GI journals (Gastroenterology, Gut, and American Journal of Gastroenterology) across a 20-year period in 5-year intervals (in 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012). We used a validated gender-determining algorithm, genderize.io, to classify gender. Our primary outcome was the proportion of female primary and last authors, with secondary measures assessing trends in gender and nationality. RESULTS: Through the Genderize.io gender database, we were able to identify the gender for 3,673 (95.9%) of primary author names and 3,504 (95.4%) of last author names in the 3,615 manuscripts evaluated. Overall, there was a significant increase in female primary authors over time, from 18.1% in 1997 to 42.6% in 2017, a 6.0% increase per 5-year period (95% CI 4.8-7.2%). A similar trend was found for female last authors, however, at a slower rate, from 8.3% in 1997 to 24.7% in 2017, a 3.5% increase per 5 years (95% CI 2.5-4.4%). These trends were noted cumulatively, and in each journal individually. Manuscripts with a female last author were more likely to demonstrate a female primary author. CONCLUSION: Female authorship in high-impact gastroenterology journals has increased over time. Last authorship has lagged primary authorship in female representation and has increased more slowly over time. Interventions to reduce gender disparity in GI research should focus on the transition from first to last authorship.
  • 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.