PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 28

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty Open PDF
(American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), 2026-01)
Qazi, Shurjeel Uddin
;
Cawse-Lucas, Jeanne
;
Hussain, Mehwish
;
Khurshid, Kiran
;
Khosa, Faisal
INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the current trends of gender disparity in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns for research within Family Medicine. METHODS: Funding data was collected from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) system for fiscal years 2017-2020, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was retrieved from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. RESULTS: We analyzed 730 grants in our analysis. Amongst them, 398 (54.5%) were awarded to women PIs and 332 (45.5%) to men PIs. The mean NIH grant amount awarded to men PIs (518,862±490,793.32) was significantly higher than the mean grant amount awarded to women PIs (450,195±428,405.62) (p = 0.04). The strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the number of publications of men PIs. When the gender of PI and co-PI were analyzed together, there was no significant difference in the number of grants or mean grant amount. Stratification by academic degree revealed no significant difference between both genders for the mean NIH grant amount. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing representation of women within the discipline of family medicine, men continue to receive higher average NIH grant amounts compared to women. The differences are multifactorial and may include differences in academic productivity or grant committees' heuristics. Overall, the results were promising with little evidence of significant gender disequilibrium within NIH-funding for researchers in FM.
Gender-Based Disparities in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Physician Compensation in 2023 Open PDF
(Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-03-11)
Chauhan, Dhun
;
DeYoung, Joshua K.
;
Goodrich, Ezra
;
Templeton, Kimberly
;
Day, Charles S.
Background: Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the least diverse specialties in medicine. Parity in opportunity and recognition are key factors in attracting and retaining a diverse group of individuals in the field. The primary purpose of this study was to assess gender-based discrepancies in total salary compensation by rank for academic orthopaedic surgery faculty. Methods: Aggregate data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for fiscal year 2023. Mean compensation was compared for orthopaedic surgery faculty and total surgery faculty at all academic ranks based on gender and race. Results: Men received markedly higher total compensation for all ranks except chair within orthopaedic surgery. At the instructor level, men earned an average annual income of $554,245 while women received $229,204, demonstrating a significant pay gap (P = 0.0019). At the assistant professor (men: $628,346; women: $475,857), associate professor (men: $732,381; women: $575,877), and professor (men: $743,822; women: $472,140) levels, there existed significant pay disparities (P < 0.0001 for all three academic levels, respectively). At the chief position, men earned an average of $1,185,873 annually while women received $596,270 (P = 0.0006). Aggregate data for other surgical specialties demonstrated similar results, with women receiving lower total compensation at all ranks compared with men. Conclusion: This analysis of the 2023 American Medical Colleges Faculty Salary Report demonstrates a notable pay differential between men and women in orthopaedic surgery and surgical specialties, in general, across multiple academic levels including instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chief of division. Although there has been increasing awareness of gender-based compensation disparities within surgical specialties, particularly in orthopaedic surgery, these disparities are still clearly present.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study Open PDF
(2019)
Lerchenmueller, Marc J.
;
Sorenson, Olav
;
Jena, Anupam B.
OBJECTIVES: Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES: Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as "novel" or "excellent." For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS: Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.
The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF
(2006)
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Guancial, Elizabeth A.
;
Worobey, Cynthia Cooper
;
Henault, Lori E.
;
Chang, Yuchiao
BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
Underrepresentation of Women on Radiology Editorial Boards. Open PDF
(2019)
Jalilianhasanpour, Rozita
;
Charkhchi, Paniz
;
Mirbolouk, Mohammadhassan
;
Yousem, David M.
PURPOSE: Women in radiology are known to be underrepresented in academic leadership positions. We sought to determine if women are appropriately represented on editorial boards and editor-in-chief positions compared with their authorship contributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the first and senior authorship male versus female gender breakdown of manuscripts published in nine high-impact American radiology journals 1 month per year from 2002 to 2017. We looked at the gender of the first authors, senior authors, editorial board members, and editors-in-chief of these journals to see if there was a gender discrepancy. RESULTS: We assessed 3,702 first authors, 3,702 senior authors, and 9,400 editorial board members. Women were underrepresented on the editorial boards compared with their first-authored manuscript contribution in our sample of articles from every journal for every year and were underrepresented compared with their senior-authored manuscript contributions in 119 of 139 (85.6%) journal-years. The percentage of women as first authors (mean = 29.3 ± 9.9), senior authors (mean = 20.7 ± 8.1), and editorial board members (mean = 13.4 ± 6.5) showed major differences (P < .001). This gap did not significantly narrow over the 16 years of study. Notably, there was no woman as editor-in-chief for any of the journal-years. CONCLUSION: There is a gender gap in the composition of editorial boards in radiology compared with authorship contributions by women. Given the implications of editorial board assignment and editorship on women's academic advancement, journals may wish to consider strategies that will narrow the gap.
Editorial (Spring) Board? Gender Composition in High-impact General Surgery Journals Over 20 Years Open PDF
(2019)
Harris, Chelsea A.
;
Banerjee, Tanima
;
Cramer, Monica
;
Manz, Shannon
;
Ward, Sarah T.
Objective: To quantify gender composition of 10 high-impact general surgery journals, delineate how board composition has changed over time, and evaluate qualification metrics by gender. Background: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards may contribute to the gender-based achievement gap in surgery. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial board gender composition among 10 high-impact general surgery journals in 1997, 2007, and 2017. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in editors’ H-indices, academic rank, and number of advanced degrees. Differences in editor turnover and multiple board positions were evaluated for each time interval. Results: Over 20 years, the proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 5% to 19%. After controlling for time since board certification, no differences between men and women's number of advanced degrees, H-indices, or academic rank remained significant. Women and men were equally likely to hold multiple board positions (1997 P = 0.74; 2007 P = 0.42; 2017 P = 0.69), but men's editorial board tenure was longer across each time interval (1997–2007 P = 0.003; 2007–2017 P < 0.001; 1997–2017 P = 0.01). Conclusions: Women surgeons have a small but growing presence on surgical editorial boards, and gender-based qualification differences are likely attributable to practice length. Men's longer tenure on editorial boards may drive some of the observed disparity by limiting new appointment opportunities. Strategies such as imposing term limits or instituting merit-based performance reviews may help editorial boards capture the field's changing demographics.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results