PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 84

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.
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.
Gender gap in returns to publications Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2026-06-14)
Spiewanowski, Piotr
;
Stetsyuk, Ivan
;
Talavera, Oleksandr
Gender equity in science depends not only on who participates in research, but also on how their work is rewarded. We examine gender gaps in monetary returns to research productivity, pay, and credit attribution using a novel dataset linking salary and publication records for professors at U.S. public universities. While our main contribution shows that there is no robust evidence of a significant gender gap in monetary returns to publications, we uncover substantial heterogeneity across disciplines and authorship structures. Women in medical and health sciences experience a negative gap in returns of 10.7% relative to men for equivalent research output. The unconditional gender pay gap averages 15.4%, with variation across disciplines, ranging from 5.5% in agricultural sciences to 20.9% in social sciences. It declines to 4.9% after controls. Finally, women earn higher returns to solo-authored work but lower returns to larger co-author networks than men.
Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley Open PDF
(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1975-02-07)
Bickel, P. J.
;
Hammel, E. A.
;
O'Connell, J. W.
Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
Gender Inequity in Institutional Leadership Roles in US Academic Medical Centers Open PDF
(American Medical Association (AMA), 2025-04-04)
Levy, Morgan S.
;
Hunt, Kelby N.
;
Lindsay, Kara A.
;
Mohan, Vikasni
;
Mercadel, Alyssa
Importance Academic medical centers have focused their efforts on promoting gender equity in recent years, but the positive outcomes associated with those efforts remain to be seen in recruiting and retaining diverse institutional leadership. Objective To evaluate the current state of gender inequity in institutional leadership roles, such as deans, department chairs, and residency and fellowship program directors, at US academic medical centers. Evidence Review A search for articles published from January 1, 2019, to August 5, 2022, on gender inequity in institutional leadership roles at academic medical centers was performed using the PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC databases. Studies were screened for inclusion by sets of 2 independent reviewers (with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer) and evaluated for risk of bias. The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards were followed for conducting the review, and the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was followed for reporting results. Findings A total of 8120 articles were retrieved, of which 6368 were screened by title and abstract, 6166 were excluded, and 202 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 94 studies reported on institutional leadership roles, including deans (5 studies [5.3%]), department chairs (39 studies [41.5%]), division chiefs (25 studies [26.6%]), and program directors (67 studies [71.3%]), with some overlap. A total of 678 participants were deans (564 men [80.5%] and 132 women [19.5%]), 8518 were department chairs (7160 men [84.1%] and 1358 women [15.9%]), 3734 division chiefs (2997 men [80.3%] and 737 women [19.7%]), and 9548 program directors (7455 men [78.1%] and 2093 women [21.9%]). Even in specialties with 50% or more female faculty, none had equal representation of women as department chairs and division chiefs. Gender inequities were particularly pronounced in surgical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic scoping review suggests that even though emphasis has been placed on addressing gender inequities in academic medicine, considerable disparities remain at the leadership level. While certain positions and specialties have been observed to have more female leaders, niches of academic medicine almost or completely exclude women from their leadership ranks. Importantly, even female-dominated specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology, have substantial inequity in leadership roles. It is past time for organizational and systems-level changes to ensure equitable gender representation in academic leadership.
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.
Is the gender gap closing in otolaryngology subspecialties? An analysis of research productivity Open PDF
(2020)
Okafor, S.
;
Tibbetts, K.
;
Shah, G.
;
Tillman, B.
;
Agan, A.
Objective: The proportion of women specializing in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (Oto–HNS) and seeking fellowship training has steadily increased over the last several years. In academic Oto–HNS, gender differences exist in research productivity, scholarly impact, and funding. This study aims to evaluate gender differences in academic productivity between otolaryngologists in early, mid-, and later careers stages and within various subspecialties. Methods: Departmental websites for all Oto–HNS residency programs were accessed, and data including gender, academic rank, and fellowship training/subspecialty field was collected. Bibliometric data including h-index, publication years, number of citations, documents, and coauthors was obtained from the Scopus database. Career groups were defined as early (1–5 years), mid- (6–15 years), and later (16+ years). Continuous data was compared using the t test. Results: Data was collected on 1,754 academic otolaryngologists (412 women, 1,342 men). Overall, men exhibited significantly higher h-indices, number of documents, citations, and coauthors and actively published for more years compared to women (P < 0.0001 for all variables). Similar trends persisted across all subspecialties. When authors were broken down into career groups, women and men showed similar research productivity across all career groups in the subspecialties of otology, facial plastics, and rhinology; however, in head and neck, laryngology, and pediatrics, women continued to lag behind men. Conclusion: This study suggests that female otolaryngologists within certain subspecialties are keeping pace with their male counterparts in publication productivity in the early career time frame. This represents a change from prior studies which have shown women to be less productive in the early career period. Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 130:1144–1150, 2020. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
United States Medical School Academic Faculty Workforce Diversity, Institutional Characteristics, and Geographical Distributions From 2014-2018
(2022)
Ogunyemi, Dotun
;
Okekpe, C. Camille
;
Barrientos, Devin R.
;
Bui, Tina
;
Au, Melanie N.
Purpose Academic healthcare workforce diversity is important in addressing health disparities. Our goal was to evaluate trends and associations in faculty diversity of United States (US) medical schools over a five-year period. Methods We analyzed the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster data of 151 US medical schools from 2014-2018. Outcome faculty variables were female gender, underrepresented in medicine (UiM), age, and professorial representation. Predictor variables included geographical distributions, and institutional characteristics. Statistical analysis included Jonckheere-Terpstra test, ANOVA, and regression analysis. Results Female faculty increased from 37.6% to 40.4% (p<0.001), senior faculty (age >60 years) from 22.6% to 25.9% (p=0.001) while UiM faculty stayed relatively flat from 9.74% to 10.08% (p=0.773). UiM [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.39, p=0.015], and female faculty (aOR=0.3, p=0.001) had independently significantly decreased associations with professorial representation, while senior faculty had increased associations (aOR=3.82, p<0.001). Significant independent differences occurred in female, UiM, and professorial faculty distributions within US regions; Hispanic faculty were highest in Southwest (6.57%) and lowest in Midwest region (1.59%), while African-American faculty were highest in Southeast (8.15%) but lowest in the West (3.12%). UiM faculty had significantly independent decreased associations with MD/PhD degree (aOR=0.30, p=0.004) and higher US ranking institutions (aOR=0.45, p=0.009). Conclusions From 2014 to 2018, female faculty increased modestly while the UiM faculty trend remained flat. Female and UiM faculty were less represented at the professor level. UiM faculty were less represented in higher-ranking institutions. Geographic location is associated with faculty diversity.
Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF
(2018)
O'Connor, Erin E.
;
Chen, Pauline
;
Weston, Brian
;
Anderson, Redmond
;
Zeffiro, Timothy
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America Open PDF
(2021)
O'Neill, S.B.
;
Maddu, K.
;
Jalal, S.
;
Yeo, S.
;
Khurshid, K.
Purpose: In the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America. Materials and Methods: A list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases. Results: Four hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Gender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results