PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 35
  • Item type:Publication,
    A longitudinal analysis of gendered career trajectories and academic efficiency in North American MD/PhD faculty Open PDF 
    (Informa UK Limited, 2026-05-28)
    Quon, Stephanie
    ;
    Joseph, Marissa
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Gender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing women's representation in higher education. Prior research highlights the underrepresentation of women in senior ranks and leadership roles, yet few studies have assessed these disparities using time-adjusted productivity metrics. This study aims to evaluate gender-based differences in academic rank, scholarly productivity, and leadership representation among MD/PhD faculty in North America, accounting for career length and institutional variability. A secondary analysis was conducted on a dataset of 6,149 MD/PhD faculty from 122 accredited North American medical schools. Time-adjusted measures of productivity, H-index per year and citations per year, were calculated. Gender differences in rank, productivity, and leadership were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests and descriptive statistics. Institutional-level representation of women in leadership roles was also analyzed. Women held significantly lower academic ranks than males and were underrepresented in departmental leadership roles. Despite achieving assistant and full professorships earlier, women were overall less likely to reach these positions. Males exhibited higher time-adjusted H-index and citation rates (p < .0001), with a compounded 3.5-year publication gap. Institutional analysis revealed stark variability: 38 institutions had no women in MD/PhD leadership roles, while fewer than 20 percent achieved gender parity. Gender disparities in academic medicine cannot be explained by productivity alone. Structural barriers, opaque promotion criteria, and institutional cultures continue to impede women's advancement and leadership. Addressing these inequities requires transparent policies, targeted mentorship, equity audits, and inclusive leadership pathways to support a more equitable academic workforce.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender representation trends in cardiothoracic surgery journal editorial boards Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2024-12)
    Higaki, Adrian Acuna
    ;
    Papageorge, Marianna V.
    ;
    Waldron, Christina
    ;
    Huggins, Lenique
    ;
    Brinker, Morgan
    Objective We aimed to characterize chronologic trends of gender composition of the editorial boards of major cardiothoracic surgery journals in the current era. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed of gender representation in editorial board members of 2 North American cardiothoracic surgery journals from 2008 to 2023. Member names and roles were collected from available monthly issues. Validated software programming was used to classify gender. The annual proportion of women representation was compared to the thoracic surgery workforce. Results During the study period, 558 individuals (3641 names) were identified, 14.3% of whom were women. The total number of editorial board women increased for both journals. The proportion of women also increased from 2.5% (3 out of 118) in 2008 to 17.8% (71 out of 399) in 2023 (P < .001), exceeding the percentage of women in the thoracic surgery workforce, which increased from 3.8% in 2007 to 8.3% in 2021 (P < .001). The average duration of participation was longer for men than for women (53.8 vs 44.5 months; P = .01). Women in editorial board senior roles also increased from 3.3% (1 out of 30) in 2008 to 28.6% (42 out of 147) in 2023 (P < .001), almost triple the increase in nondesignated roles from 2.3% (2 out of 88) in 2008 to 11.5% (29 out of 252) in 2023 (P < .001). Conclusions In recent years, the appointment of women to the editorial boards of high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals and senior roles have proportionally exceeded the overall representation of women in cardiothoracic surgery. These findings indicate progress in inclusive efforts and offer insight toward reducing academic gender disparities.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Spine Surgeon Leadership of Clinical Trials for Degenerative Spine Disease Research Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-08-28)
    Silvestre, Jason
    ;
    Walker, Jasmine J.
    ;
    Kang, James D.
    ;
    Ravinsky, Robert A.
    ;
    Lawrence, James P.
    Introduction: Despite increasing awareness, women remain underrepresented in academic spine surgery. This study assessed whether women were equitably represented among spine surgeon PIs of clinical trials for degenerative spine disease research. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of spine surgeon principal investigators (PIs) in the United States (2015 to 2022). ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for the most common diagnoses and surgeries for degenerative spine diseases. Characteristics of spine surgeon PIs were collected from academic profiles. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for men and women PIs relative to their prevalence among spine surgery faculty at accredited training programs. A PPR of 0.8 to 1.2 indicated equitable sex representation. A PPR <0.8 was defined as underrepresentation and >1.2 as overrepresentation. Results: In total, 129 spine surgeon PIs of 91 clinical trials were included in this study. Overall, there were 125 male (97%) and four female (3%) spine surgeon PIs. Overall, women were underrepresented among spine surgeon PIs (PPR = 0.64), whereas men had equitable representation (PPR = 1.02). From 2015 to 2018, female spine surgeons were underrepresented (PPR = 0.33), but achieved equitable representation from 2019 to 2022 (PPR = 0.95). Male spine surgeons had consistently equitable representation across the study period (PPR range 1.00 to 1.03). Women had equitable representation at assistant (PPR = 1.08) and associate (PPR = 0.31) professor ranks, but were underrepresented at the full professor rank (PPR = 0). PIs were funded by industry (54%), academic institution (44%), and US Federal (2%) sources. No differences were observed in funding sources by sex ( P = 0.36). Discussion: There are a limited number of female spine surgeon PIs for degenerative spine disease clinical trials, which may have negative implications on the vitality of the specialty moving forward. Future investigations are needed to understand the barriers women face in obtaining clinical trial leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity among top North American medical schools and their affiliated radiology departments Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-01)
    Ahmadi, Shukria
    ;
    Joarder, Ishraq
    ;
    Rotter, Lara K
    ;
    Hussain, Mehwish
    ;
    Yong-Hing, Charlotte J
    Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the degree of gender disparity in leadership positions at the top 25 medical schools in North America compared to their affiliated radiology departments. Methods The academic rank and leadership appointment of medical school and radiology faculty were obtained from publicly available official websites between June-November 2022. Gender was determined using self-identified pronouns on website biographies. Alternatively, gender API software was used. Finally, SCOPUS Elsevier was used to extract research output metrics including publication counts, citations, and h-indices. Statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 software. Results 2216 individuals across 25 medical schools were included in this study. 1301 (58.7 %) were part of the medical school and 915 (41.3 %) were part of the affiliated radiology departments. Additionally, 1575 (71.1 %) were identified as men and 641 (28.9 %) as women. Rank biserial correlations showed a significant association between higher academic rank and male gender (rpb = 0.143, p < 0.001) regardless of affiliation (medical school leadership versus radiology faculty); this disparity was largest at the highest academic ranks. Male gender was associated with higher research productivity relative to female gender regardless of affiliation (p < 0.001). There were minimal statistical differences in leadership positions between genders, however the proportion of men holding the position of dean was two times higher than women. Conclusion The underrepresentation of women in academic medicine is prevalent in the top-ranking medical institutions in North America and disproportionately involves senior academic ranks and leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Assessing and improving women representation in radiology leadership positions Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-01)
    Sharma, Sonali
    ;
    Malik, Aleena
    ;
    Matschek, Jessica
    ;
    Zaki-Metias, Kaitlin M.
    ;
    Gandhi, Rushali
    Gender representation remains a critical issue in professions, especially within medical specialties like radiology, where the representation of women in leadership roles significantly lags. Despite a promising increase in women physicians in Canada, reaching 42.7% by 2019, radiology showcases a stark gender disparity, particularly in leadership positions. This article examines the barriers hindering women's advancement in radiology and proposes actionable solutions to cultivate a more equitable environment. It highlights the underrepresentation of women in radiology leadership across the United States and Canada, with women holding significantly fewer senior academic positions and leadership roles. Key barriers include a lack of women role models, gender-based obstacles in research opportunities, and by design discriminatory practices. Solutions proposed include the establishment of mentorship programs, and inclusive policies at multiple organizational levels such as at the level of trainees, faculty and leadership positions including chair of the department. Additionally, policies and initiatives centred on education and training in unconscious bias, the creation of professional groups for women in radiology, and interventions to address unsafe work environments.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women faculty achieve promotion to full professor equivalent to men faculty in a subset of US academic pathology departments Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-07)
    Leonard, Debra G.B.
    ;
    Limson, Melvin
    ;
    Fitzhugh, Valerie A.
    ;
    Barclift, Deniz Peker
    ;
    Ryan, Eileen A.
    Women faculty in academic medicine remain underrepresented at higher faculty ranks despite equal numbers of men and women medical students since 2003. This 2022 study asked if US academic pathology departments had achieved equity across academic rank for women faculty. The survey of 135 member departments of the Association for Academic Pathology requested data regarding chair characteristics, other department leaders' number and gender, and faculty number and gender by academic rank and track. Sixty-four (47%) member departments responded. Twenty-three of the responding departments (36%) had equity of women and men full professors, defined as <5% difference women and men full professors as a percentage of total faculty. Departments with professor gender equity more often had a woman chair (P < 0.01), and a higher percentage of women faculty (P < 0.05), women on the research tenure track (P < 0.01), and tenured women faculty (P < 0.01). Unstructured interviews with a subset of department chairs did not identify significant differences between departments with and without professor gender equity, except that equity was more driven by the intention of the chair (P < 0.01) and less by dean or institutional influence (P < 0.01). Over one third of US academic pathology departments responding to the survey have achieved equity for women and men full professors in current academic medicine institutions. This equity success for women is lost when looking at data by specialty or nationally, rather than by department.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in leadership positions among academic nuclear medicine specialists in Canada and the United States Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Moghimi, S.
    ;
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Qamar, S.R.
    ;
    Nicolaou, S.
    OBJECTIVE. Despite equal representation of genders among medical students, women continue to be underrepresented in the field of academic diagnostic radiology. These differences are manifest across subspecialties in academic medicine and even in diagnostic radiology. There are limited data available addressing diversity among nuclear medicine specialists. Thus, our primary objective was to compare gender representation in academic and leadership positions among faculty members in nuclear medicine in Canada and the United States. Our secondary objective was to study the influences to account for the existing disparity in academic nuclear medicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS), we created a database of faculty members in nuclear medicine. For assessment of academic performance, the h-index, number of publications, number of citations, and years of active research were extracted using Scopus. RESULTS. The academic ranks of 237 faculty members were used for analysis; of this group, 16.95% of associate professors were female. Women were less frequently represented in higher academic ranks, and women were also less frequently represented in leadership ranks (13.6% female vs 86.4% male). The h-index was comparable across genders. CONCLUSION. Female nuclear medicine specialists are underrepresented in academic and leadership positions compared with their male counterparts. This difference in numbers is unlikely to be because of academic performance given that both genders had comparable academic performance metrics in our study. The results show the need for devising strategies to promote diversity in academic and leadership positions across nuclear medicine specialists. © American Roentgen Ray Society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Marhoffer, Elizabeth A.
    ;
    Ein-Alshaeba, Samer
    ;
    Grimshaw, Alyssa A.
    ;
    Holleck, Jürgen L.
    ;
    Rudikoff, Benjamin
    PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Non-ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) Otolaryngology Fellowship Leadership Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Leyden, Kara
    ;
    Soeder, Mason
    ;
    Holdaway, Matthew
    ;
    Scagnelli, Robert
    ;
    Mortensen, Melissa
    OBJECTIVE: Women are underrepresented among practicing otolaryngology physicians with increasing disparities in leadership roles and higher levels of professional attainment in academic medicine. The purpose of this study is to determine the gender gap among fellowship directors within specific otolaryngology subspecialties, and how this compares to disparities among all academic appointments held by otolaryngologists. Additionally, we seek to better understand how years practiced, H-index, professorship status, and academic productivity differ between men and women in fellowship director roles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. Publicly available data from non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships was collected from department websites and Doximity including gender, years of practice, and professor status of fellowship directors. Scopus was used to find H-index for identified fellowship directors. Fisher's Exact tests were used to determine if significant gender disparity existed between each fellowship and academic otolaryngology as whole. H-index and years of practice were plotted for men and women comparing the slope of lines of best fit as a measure of academic productivity. SETTING: Non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships in the US. PARTICIPANTS: Fellowship directors in non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships. RESULTS: Among 174 fellowship positions in our analysis, head and neck (17.3% women), laryngology (17.2% women), rhinology (5.7% women), and facial plastics (8.1% women) had significantly lower overall women representation compared to academic otolaryngology (36.6% women) (p < 0.05). As fellowship directors, women were significantly more productive than men given years practiced and H-index (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities among otolaryngologists are amplified in the role of fellowship directors compared to broader academic otolaryngology. This is true despite women in these roles demonstrating higher academic productivity.
  • 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.