PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USASubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women Emergency Physicians and Gender Disparities from Entry to Advancement Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-07)
    Sethuraman, Kinjal N.
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Gorman, Emily F.
    ;
    Zeidan, Amy J.
    ;
    Agrawal, Pooja
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to summarize the last 20 years of published research on gender experience and disparities in the emergency medicine workforce. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE ALL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from 2003 to 2024, to identify original research investigating gender experience and disparities among physicians in emergency medicine in North America. We abstracted study design, sample characteristics, and outcomes. We analyzed data using an ad hoc iterative thematic analysis of the content areas as well as a synthesis of the key findings and research limitations. RESULTS: We identified 5,740 candidate publications and, after exclusions, included 191 (99% observational studies). We identified 15 themes: (1) workforce, (2) childbearing, (3) attrition, (4) evaluations, (5) bias and discrimination, (6) wellness, (7) professional development groups and mentorship, (8) authorship, (9) editorial board membership, (10) research grants, (11) national speakers, (12) awards, (13) leadership roles, (14) academic rank and promotion, (15) financial compensation and one subtheme (pediatric emergency medicine). We mapped these themes to 5 domains: (1) Recruitment and Retention, (2) Culture and Environment, (3) Academic Scholarship, (4) Recognition and Promotion, and (5) Clinical Care and Decisionmaking. There were 3 to 33 publications per theme. The quality of evidence was variable. We found fewer disparities, and improvement over time in the percentage of women academic faculty, women authorship, national speaking, and educational awards. We found consistent evidence of gender disparities disadvantaging women emergency physicians in financial compensation, editorial board membership, executive leadership roles, academic rank, and experiences of gender bias, with little change over time. CONCLUSION: Although some areas remain understudied, our central findings confirm that gender-based disparities continue to exist among emergency physicians. Future efforts should be redirected toward the development and assessment of interventions that combat these disparities.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bias in Student Evaluations of Surgical Attendings: Role of Gender, Race, Age and Experience Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-06)
    Theis, Claudia
    ;
    Jacob, Anusha S.
    ;
    Kapadia, Muneera Rehana
    ;
    Pascarella, Luigi
    Introduction Student evaluations influence faculty promotion but may reflect implicit bias. We assessed whether surgeon gender, race, age, and experience were associated with differences in student evaluations at a large academic medical center. Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study included 149 surgical attendings evaluated by medical students at the University of North Carolina between 2016 and 2020. Quantitative evaluation items were rated on 5-point Likert scales and analyzed using surgeon-level summary comparisons (Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal–Wallis tests), evaluation-level multivariable logistic regression, and generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to account for clustering of multiple evaluations per attending. Qualitative free-text comments were analyzed using a validated natural language processing framework and summarized on a 5-point sentiment scale. Results A total of 149 surgical attendings were evaluated, including 39 women (26.2%) and 110 men (73.8%). The racial and ethnic distribution was 102 White (68.5%), 28 Asian (18.8%), 13 Black (8.7%), and 6 Latino (4.0%). In total, 2475 quantitative evaluations were analyzed, of which 1542 (62.3%) included narrative comments. The median time in practice was 14 y (Q1-Q3: 9-22), and the median time at the University of North Carolina was 11 y (Q1-Q3: 7-19.5). Median composite quantitative evaluation scores were lower for women than for men (4.42 [4.32-4.61] versus 4.61 [4.40-4.82] on a 5-point scale; P = 0.002). In GEE models accounting for clustering of evaluations within attendings and adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and years in practice, women remained independently associated with lower evaluation scores (β = −0.206; 95% confidence interval: −0.294 to −0.118; P < 0.001). Composite evaluation scores did not differ significantly across racial or ethnic groups (Kruskal–Wallis P = 0.40), and race was not a significant predictor in adjusted models (GEE P = 0.13). Attendings aged ≥50 y had lower unadjusted evaluation scores than younger colleagues (P = 0.03); however, age was not independently associated with evaluation scores after clustering adjustment (GEE P = 0.14). Qualitative sentiment scores were uniformly high (median 4.0 [Q1-Q3: 4.0-4.5]) and did not differ by gender, race, or age. Conclusions Women surgeons received lower quantitative scores than their male colleagues, despite similarly positive qualitative feedback. Age differences were observed in unadjusted analyses but were attenuated after accounting for clustering, whereas no significant differences were observed by race or years in practice. Although absolute score differences were modest, these findings suggest that commonly used student evaluation metrics may reflect gender-related bias and should be interpreted cautiously in academic surgical assessment.
  • 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,
    Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Authorship Gender in The Journal of Pediatrics: Disproportionate Productivity by International Male Researchers Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Williams, W.A., II
    ;
    Li, A.
    ;
    Goodman, D.M.
    ;
    Ross, L.F.
    Objective: To assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on authorship gender in articles submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics. Study design: Using gender-labeling algorithms and human inspection, we inferred the gender of corresponding authors of original articles submitted in January-February and April-May of 2019 and 2020 noting those articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Pearson χ2 tests to determine differences in gender proportions during the selected periods in the US and internationally. Results: We analyzed 1521 original articles. Submissions increased 10.9% from January-February 2019 to January-February 2020 and 61.6% from April-May 2019 to April-May 2020. Women accounted for 56.0% of original articles in April-May 2019 but only 49.8% of original articles in April-May 2020. Original articles focused on COVID-19 represented a small percentage of additional articles submitted in January-February 2020 (1/33 or 3.0%) and (53/199 or 26.6%) in April-May 2020 compared with the number of submissions in the same months in 2019. International male corresponding authors submitted a significantly larger proportion of original articles compared with international female corresponding authors in April-May 2020 compared to April-May 2019 (P = .043). There was no difference in corresponding author gender proportion in the US (US in April-May of 2020 vs April-May of 2019; P = .95). There was no significant difference in final dispositions based on corresponding author gender for original articles from 2019 and 2020 (P = .17). Conclusions: Original article submissions to The Journal increased in April-May 2020, with the greatest increase by international male corresponding authors. The majority of the submission growth was not related to COVID-19. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in patenting process Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Wang, Y.
    ;
    Yang, Z.
    ;
    Liu, L.
    ;
    Wang, X.
    Collaboration among inventors is very important in patenting an invention. Inventors collaborate based on their professional knowledge and experience. Because of the non-disclosure nature of the invention process, it is difficult to test the factors influencing collaboration between inventors, e.g., gender bias. In this study, employing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dataset with 6.64 million patents, we have identified the gender of 4.66 million inventors, including 2.12 million lead inventors and 2.54 million joint inventors. We find that women are underrepresented in the patent collaboration process and that both genders have strong preference for same-gender inventors. Moreover, even in those fields that have equal proportions of male and female inventors, gender bias persists. These results highlight the need to intensify efforts to combat gender bias in the patenting process rather than focusing solely on the lack of equal gender representation in the numerical proportions. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Sud, P.
    Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible undercitation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first-and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Pardeep Sud. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Nevill, T.
    The lack of females in many Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in the USA is an ongoing concern, with many initiatives attempting to redress this imbalance. Some life sciences are apparently areas of relatively good practice, with higher proportions of female researchers than most other STEM subjects. This paper assesses gender differences in research contributions to 14 biochemistry, genetics or molecular biology specialisms in the USA 1996–2014/8, seeking evidence of trends in publishing and citation impact that may give insights into female success. With four exceptions (biochemistry, biophysics, biotechnology, and structural biology), the fields achieved or maintained at least 40% female first authors by 2018, with developmental biology and endocrinology both attaining female first author majorities. A regression analysis found close to gender parity overall in citation impact but a small male first author citation advantage in more fields than the opposite: an up to 3% increase in logged citation ratio to the world mean. This was partly due to males first authoring with larger teams. Fields with relatively many females did not favour female-led research with more citations, however. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2017)
    Devine, P.G.
    ;
    Forscher, P.S.
    ;
    Cox, W.T.L.
    ;
    Kaatz, A.
    ;
    Sheridan, J.
    Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters (N = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments and perceptions of a more positive departmental climate. Following this initial success, the present study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation. Whereas the proportion of women hired by control departments remained stable over time, the proportion of women hired by intervention departments increased by an estimated 18 percentage points (OR = 2.23, dOR = 0.34). Though the preregistered analysis did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.07), the study has a hard upper limit on statistical power, as the cluster-randomized trial has a maximum sample size of 92 departmental clusters. These findings, however, have undeniable practical significance for the advancement of women in science, and provide promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally Open PDF 
    (eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2019)
    Broderick, Nichole A
    ;
    Casadevall, Arturo
    ;
    Rodgers, Peter A
    We analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.