PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USASubject: search.filters.subject.Time Factors

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Revisiting the Gender Gap in Orthopaedic Surgery: Investigating the Relationship Between Orthopaedic Surgery Female Faculty and Female Residency Applicants. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Munger, Alana M.
    ;
    Heckmann, Nathanael
    ;
    McKnight, Braden
    ;
    Dusch, Marie N.
    ;
    Hatch, George F. 3rd
    INTRODUCTION: Although women now constitute approximately half of all graduating medical students, orthopaedic surgery continues to lag behind in its ability to recruit female applicants. One hypothesis for this discrepancy is the lack of female faculty mentors at academic institutions. The three objectives of this study were the following: (1) to quantify the proportion of female orthopaedic surgery residency applicants, (2) to quantify the proportion of female orthopaedic surgery faculty, and (3) to investigate the relationship between female orthopaedic surgery faculty at an academic institution and the corresponding number of female orthopaedic surgery residency applicants. METHODS: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges from 2005 to 2014 were used to calculate the number of medical school graduates, the number of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants, and the number of orthopaedic full-time faculty in the United States. Institutions were excluded if they had incomplete data. A Spearman rank correlation was used to assess for a correlation between the 9-year total number of female orthopaedic surgery applicants and the average number of female orthopaedic surgery faculty members. RESULTS: A total of 101 U.S. medical schools were included in the final analysis. During the period examined, women accounted for 48.7% of medical school graduates, 14.9% of orthopaedic surgery applicants, and 13.2% of full-time orthopaedic surgery faculty. The percentage of female residency applicants increased from 13.91% in 2005 to 2006 to 16.02% in 2013 to 2014 while the percentage of female faculty increased from 12.26% in 2005 to 2006 to 15.79% in 2013 to 2014. No correlation was found between the average number of female orthopaedic surgery faculty at an institution and the total number of female orthopaedic surgery applicants from that institution during the study period examined (Rho, 0.0176; P = 0.5957). CONCLUSIONS: The data presented in this study failed to demonstrate a relationship between the number of female faculty and the number of women who apply into orthopaedic surgery, which highlights the complex nature of this issue. More research is needed to examine factors influencing the recruitment of female medical students.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Authorship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 28-Year Analysis of Publications Originating From the United States, 1990-2017 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Pagel, Paul S.
    ;
    Freed, Julie K.
    ;
    Lien, Cynthia A.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based differences in scholarship among cardiothoracic anesthesiologists have not been studied. The authors examined the gender distribution of authorship of original research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) originating from the United States during four 3-year intervals to determine temporal changes in productivity of women in cardiothoracic anesthesiology. The authors tested the hypothesis that scholarly output of women has increased progressively in JCVA over time concomitant with greater participation in first, last, and corresponding author roles. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Internet analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Authors of research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials published in JCVA in 1990-92, 1999-2001, 2008-10, and 2015-17. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The gender of each author was determined by inspection of the first name. If gender could not be established easily, the author's institutional website was examined or an internet search using the Google search engine was conducted. First, last, and corresponding authors as well as coauthors were noted for each article. A total of 1,195 publications with 4,982 authors (1,032 women; 20.7%) were examined. Gender was identified positively in 98.5% of authors. Women were first, last, and corresponding authors on 22.4%, 10.3%, and 14.6% of publications, respectively. The percentage of women who were authors increased from 12.1% in 1990-92 to 20.9% in 1999-2001 (p < 0.05), but plateaued in 2008 to 2010 (22.3%) and 2015 to 2017 (22.9%). Greater percentages of women were first authors (26.2%), senior authors (11.8%), and corresponding authors (16.6%) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 1990 to 1992 (9.6%, 7.0%, and 8.7%, respectively; p < 0.05 for each). The contributions of women to research articles and case reports were primarily responsible for these observed increases, although women also made a substantial impact with review articles in 2015 to 2017. The percentage of publications that included at least 1 female author in any capacity increased in a time-dependent manner (p < 0.05) from 31.0% (1990-1992) to 74.4% (2015-2017). The proportion of female first or last authors (35.0%) appearing in JCVA during 2015 to 2017 was modestly higher than the current percentage of female cardiothoracic anesthesiologists practicing in departments with accredited fellowship programs (29.1%). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that scholarly output of women rose in JCVA over time, but gains in productivity have plateaued more recently. These findings are encouraging, but women continue to be underrepresented in corresponding and last author roles.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Brown, Meghan A.
    ;
    Erdman, Mary Kate
    ;
    Munger, Alana M.
    ;
    Miller, Anna N.
    BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.