PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10

Male-dominated participation in the first two years of medical school: A mismatch between reality and perception Open PDF
(Informa UK Limited, 2026-02-26)
Park, Connor C.
;
Brendes, Keith D.
;
Lundstrom, Karrie
;
O’Neil, Kiley
;
Jayaram, Maya A.
Introduction: Although women now comprise most U.S. medical students, male physicians continue to dominate leadership roles, earn higher salaries, and hold more full professorships. These disparities suggest that cultural dynamics contributing to gender inequities may emerge early in medical training. This mixed-methods study investigated gender differences in perceived and actual participation in mandatory educational sessions during the first two years of medical school. Methods: First, a survey assessed student perceptions of gendered participation across mandatory first- and second-year educational sessions. Subsequently, these sessions were observed for eight weeks at a single institution. Observed sessions included full-class Didactic and Social/Ethical sessions (120 students) and smaller Clinical sessions (30 students). For each participation instance (asking or answering a question), the gender of the student and instructor was recorded. Students could opt out. Results: Survey responses indicated that most students perceived no gender-based differences in Social/Ethical or Clinical sessions. Female students, however, reported that men participated more frequently in Didactic sessions, while male students perceived no disparity (p = 0.001). Observational data showed male students accounted for 72.4% of 311 participation events (p < 0.001). Men contributed significantly more in Didactic (81.2%) and Social/Ethical sessions (67.1%; both p < 0.001), with no significant difference in Clinical sessions (54% male; p = 0.19). Male participation decreased in sessions led by female instructors compared with male (p = 0.036) or mixed-gender faculty (p = 0.023). Discussion: Despite objective gender disparities in participation, most first- and second-year students did not perceive differences. Notably, only female students perceived this discrepancy in their pre-observation surveys, and only in the context of didactic sessions. This imbalance may reinforce early professional norms favoring male visibility and engagement, perpetuating gender inequities in academic medicine. Addressing these dynamics is essential for fostering equitable learning environments and promoting diverse leadership in medicine.
Trends of female authorship in speech-language pathology publications over the last decade Open PDF
(BMJ, 2025-07)
Ganesan, Sandhya
;
Ferraro, Tatiana
;
Smaoui, Sana
;
Zitoun, Leena
;
Pramanik, Lara
Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyse the speech-language pathology (SLP) literature from 2012 to 2022 and evaluate authorship trends and factors associated with gender disparities. Design and outcome measures Authorship across journals published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) was evaluated. Outcomes collected from each article included the gender of the first and senior authors, author department affiliations, study type, reported funding source and the country of origin. Three sets of linear regression models were explored to determine the probability of male first authorship, of male senior authorship, and of a study being funded. Results A total of 2754 articles were identified for inclusion. The majority of the literature was authored by females, with 77% of first authors and 68% of senior authors being female. Studies with a male senior author were shown to be 4.05–4.67 times more likely to have a male first author than with a female senior author. Male senior authors were over-represented relative to their proportion of ASHA membership compared with female senior authors. Male authorship was associated with certain subtopics, including voice, stuttering and motor speech. Funding probability decreased for all authors regardless of gender between 2012 and 2022. Conclusions Implicit gender bias and societal gender stereotypes lead to a greater number of women in the field of SLP; the same biases and stereotypes often limit the research productivity and academic leadership potential of women in the field. Addressing these biases and stereotypes is vital to move towards gender equity in the field.
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.
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.
Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Ha, Giang L.
;
Lehrer, Eric J.
;
Wang, Ming
;
Holliday, Emma
;
Jagsi, Reshma
Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
Gender parity perspectives in Asia Pacific: a descriptive analysis of Philippine rheumatology conferences Open PDF
(2023)
Traboco, LS
;
Zamora-Abrahan, G
;
Reyes, SM
;
Ovseiko, PV
;
Sandhu, NK
Gender parity at conferences can facilitate progress in academia towards the attainment of gender equality as emphasized in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. The Philippines is a low to middle-income country in the Asia Pacific with relatively egalitarian gender norms experiencing significant growth in rheumatology. We examined the Philippines as a case study to analyze the impact of divergent gender norms on gender equity in rheumatology conference participation. We used publicly available data from PRA conference materials from 2009 to 2021. Gender was identified from information provided by organizers, online science directory networks, and a name-to-gender inference platform, the Gender application program interface (API). International speakers were identified separately. The results were then compared to other rheumatology conferences around the world. The PRA had 47% female faculty. Women were more likely to be the first authors in abstracts at the PRA (68%). There were more females among new inductees in PRA with the male: female ratio (M:F) of 1:3. The gender gap among new members declined from 5:1 to 2.7:1 from 2010 to 2015. However, low female representation was observed among international faculty (16%). Gender parity at the PRA was found to be considerably better when compared to other rheumatology conferences in the USA, Mexico, India, and Europe. However, a wide gender gap persisted among international speakers. Cultural and social constructs may potentially contribute to gender equity in academic conferences. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of gender norms on gender parity in academia in other Asia-Pacific countries.
Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Open PDF
(1995)
Tesch, B.J.
;
Wood, H.M.
;
Helwig, A.L.
;
Nattinger, A.B.
To assess possible explanations for the finding that the percentage of women medical school faculty members holding associate or full professor rank remains well below the percentage of men. —Cross-sectional survey of physician faculty of US medical schools using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database. —Surveyed were 153 women and 263 men first appointed between 1979 and 1981, matched for institutions of original faculty appointment. —Academic rank achieved, career preparation, academic resources at first appointment, familial responsibilities, and academic productivity. —After a mean of 11 years on a medical school faculty, 59% of women compared with 83% of men had achieved associate or full professor rank, and 5% of women compared with 23% of men had achieved full professor rank. Women and men reported similar preparation for an academic career, but women began their careers with fewer academic resources. The number of children was not associated with rank achieved. Women worked about 10% fewer hours per week and had authored fewer publications. After adjustment for productivity factors, women remained less likely to be associate or full professors (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.66) or to achieve full professor rank (adjusted OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63). Based on the AAMC database, 50% of both women and men originally appointed as faculty members between 1979 and 1981 had left academic medicine by 1991. —Women physician medical school faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Gender differences in rank achieved are not explained by productivity or by differential attrition from academic medicine. (JAMA. 1995;273:1022-1025). © 1995, Jama, All rights reserved.
Status of Women in Academic Anesthesiology: A 10-Year Update. Open PDF
(2019)
Bissing, Martha A.
;
Lange, Elizabeth M. S.
;
Davila, Wilmer F.
;
Wong, Cynthia A.
;
McCarthy, Robert J.
BACKGROUND: Gender inequity is still prevalent in today's medical workforce. Previous studies have investigated the status of women in academic anesthesiology. The objective of this study is to provide a current update on the status of women in academic anesthesiology. We hypothesized that while the number of women in academic anesthesiology has increased in the past 10 years, major gender disparities continue to persist, most notably in leadership roles. METHODS: Medical student, resident, and faculty data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges. The number of women in anesthesiology at the resident and faculty level, the distribution of faculty academic rank, and the number of women chairpersons were compared across the period from 2006 to 2016. The gender distribution of major anesthesiology journal editorial boards and data on anesthesiology research grant awards, among other leadership roles, were collected from websites and compared to data from 2005 and 2006. RESULTS: The number (%) of women anesthesiology residents/faculty has increased from 1570 (32%)/1783 (29%) in 2006 to 2145 (35%)/2945 (36%) in 2016 (P = .004 and P < .001, respectively). Since 2006, the odds that an anesthesiology faculty member was a woman increased approximately 2% per year, with an estimated odds ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.014-1.025; P < .001). In 2015, the percentage of women anesthesiology full professors (7.4%) was less than men full professors (17.3%) (difference, -9.9%; 95% confidence interval of the difference, -8.5% to -11.3%; P < .001). The percentage of women anesthesiology department chairs remained unchanged from 2006 to 2016 (12.7% vs 14.0%) (P = .75). To date, neither Anesthesia & Analgesia nor Anesthesiology has had a woman Editor-in-Chief. The percentage of major research grant awards to women has increased significantly from 21.1% in 1997-2007 to 31.5% in 2007-2016 (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities continue to exist at the upper levels of leadership in academic anesthesiology, most importantly in the roles of full professor, department chair, and journal editors. However, there are some indications that women may be on the path to leadership parity, most notably, the growth of women in anesthesiology residencies and faculty positions and increases in major research grants awarded to women.
The Impact of Faculty Gender on Resident Evaluations of Faculty Performance in Emergency Medicine
(2024)
Beaulieu, Allison M.
;
Hunold, Katherine M.
;
Mitzman, Jennifer
;
Li-Sauerwine, Simiao
INTRODUCTION: Gender bias impacts the promotion and tenure of female emergency medicine (EM) physicians and limits their ability to advance in academic rank. Many factors influence the promotion and tenure process including research, evaluations, opportunities for leadership, sponsorship, and mentorship. The goal of this study is to determine if resident evaluations of EM faculty differ by faculty gender. METHODS: A quantitative analysis was used to examine 14,613 teaching evaluations of faculty by residents at a single academic center (The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus) in the years 2017-2019. Anonymized ratings of male and female faculty on a five-point Likert scale were compared using Fischer's exact test and adjusting for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Male faculty were more likely to hold the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. When taking both faculty gender and rank into account, male Clinical Instructors and Assistant Professors had significantly higher evaluation scores by residents in the domain of resident autonomy than their female counterparts. Regardless of gender or faculty rank, the majority of faculty received scores greater than four. CONCLUSION: A significant gender difference was found in resident evaluation scores of faculty in the domain of resident autonomy at the level of Clinical Instructor and Assistant Professor. Resident autonomy refers to the degree of supervision by faculty which evolves over time and is primarily based on level of training. This is important as it demonstrates a gender difference in scores that could be used to determine faculty compensation and promotion. Evaluation tools used for promotion and tenure of academic faculty should be evaluated for implicit bias and appropriate statistical analysis.
Analysis of Sex Diversity Trends Among Ophthalmology Match Applicants, Residents, and Clinical Faculty Open PDF
(2021)
Aguwa, Ugochi T.
;
Srikumaran, Divya
;
Green, Laura K.
;
Potts, John R.
;
Canner, Joseph
IMPORTANCE: The proportion of women in the field of ophthalmology in the US trails the proportion of women in the general population. Sex diversity trends have been studied in other specialties, but there is a dearth of such literature in ophthalmology. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in the proportion of female ophthalmology match applicants, residents, and clinical faculty. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined data from the San Francisco Match, the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. Data from ophthalmology match applicants, residents, clinical faculty at US medical schools, and AAO members were collected. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of female applicants, residents, and medical school clinical faculty in ophthalmology. RESULTS: Data were obtained from a total of 2807 ophthalmology applicants (35.3% female), 1 004 563 residents (43.8% female), 463 079 clinical faculty members (42.5% female), and 78 968 AAO members (26.1% female). Male ophthalmology residency applicants outnumbered female applicants by a ratio of 1.6:1 from 2016 to 2019. The percentage of female matched applicants in 2016 (41% [168/406]) and 2019 (42% [184/436]) differed by 1% (percent change, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.12 to 3.1; P = .36). There was a 2.3% increase (percent change, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24-0.43; P < .001) in the percentage of female residents across all surgical specialties from 2011 (39.7% [8710/21 985]) to 2019 (42% [10 951/26 082]) but a 2.5% decrease (percent change, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.06; P = .02) in the percentage of female residents in ophthalmology from 2011 (41.5% [589/1419]) to 2019 (39% [575/1473]). The percentage of female ophthalmology clinical faculty differed by 2% (percent change, 1.02; 95% CI, -0.21 to 2.24; P = .10) from 2017 (38% [1179/3102]) to 2019 (40% [1225/3060]). From 2016 to 2019, male practicing ophthalmologists in the AAO outnumbered female practicing ophthalmologists by a ratio of 3:1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that the percentage of women in the field of ophthalmology remains lower than percentages in other specialties, and the percentage of female ophthalmology residents has decreased in recent years. More efforts are needed to improve female representation in ophthalmology.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results