PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
13 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Gender Disparities in Authorships of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia Research Articles Open PDF(IOS Press, 2019) ;Menzel, L.C. ;Kramer, P.W. ;Groneberg, D.A.Bendels, M.H.K.Background: Alzheimer's disease and dementia are an increasing burden affecting more than 50 million patients worldwide. Hence, research has increased significantly in recent decades. It is recognized that female authors are systematically underrepresented in research in general. Objective: In this article, we examine gender disparities in academic research on dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the last decade. Methods: 104,858 male and female authorships from 37,961 original research articles were analyzed. The global and country-specific distribution of women across first, co, and last authorships was determined with the inclusion of a citation and productivity analysis. Results: 42.1% of all authorships and 50.2% of the first, 42.2% of the co, and 32.8% of the last authorships were held by women. Women were less commonly cited, published fewer articles and were also less likely to secure prestigious authorships in articles with multiple authors compared with men. Distinct differences were observed among the countries. Conclusion: Substantial growth in the number of prestigious female authorships has been observed to date and is predicted to continue in the future, with an emphasis on the progressive representation of women and a diminishing gender gap. © 2019 - IOS Press and the authors.Item type:Publication, Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF(BMJ Publishing Group, 2023) ;Kyarunts, M. ;Michaelcheck, C.E. ;Kobeissi, H. ;Kallmes, D.F.Agid, R.Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Item type:Publication, Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank Open PDF(2022) ;Goswami, Abhishek K. ;Kokabi, Nima ;Khaja, Minhaj S. ;Saad, Wael E.Khaja, AkramRATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.Item type:Publication, Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review Open PDF(Elsevier Inc., 2022) ;Xiao, N. ;Marquez-Karry, R. ;Oliveira, D.F.M. ;Berggruen, S.Horowitz, J.M.Rationale and Objectives: Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Results: A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors. Conclusion: This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities. © 2022 The Association of University RadiologistsItem type:Publication, A framework to analyse gender bias in epidemiological research Open PDF(BMJ Publishing Group, 2007) ;Ruiz-Cantero, M.T. ;Vives-Cases, C. ;Artazcoz, L. ;Delgado, A.Calvente, M.D.M.G.The design and analysis of research may cause systematic gender dependent errors to be produced in results because of gender insensitivity or androcentrism. Gender bias in research could be defined as a systematically erroneous gender dependent approach related to social construct, which incorrectly regards women and men as similar/different. Most gender bias can be found in the context of discovery (development of hypotheses), but it has also been found in the context of justification (methodological process), which must be improved. In fact, one of the main effects of gender bias in research is partial or incorrect knowledge in the results, which are systematically different from the real values.This paper discusses some forms of conceptual and methodological bias that may affect women's health. It proposes a framework to analyse gender bias in the design and analysis of research carried out on women's and men's health problems, and on specific women's health issues.Using examples, the framework aims to show the different theoretical perspectives in a social or clinical research context where forms of selection, measurement and confounding bias are produced as a result of gender insensitivity. Finally, this paper underlines the importance of reexamining results so that they may be reinterpreted to produce new gender based knowledge.Item type:Publication, Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity Open PDF(2018) ;Qamar, S.R. ;Khurshid, K. ;Jalal, S. ;Bancroft, L.Munk, P.L.Introduction: Research productivity is one of the few quintessential gauges that North American academic radiology departments implement to determine career progression. The rationale of this study is to quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and academic advancements in the musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology to account for emerging trends in workforce diversity. Methods: Radiology residency programs enlisted in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) and International Skeletal Society (ISS) were searched for academic faculty to generate the database for gender and academic profiles of MSK radiologists. Bibliometric data was collected using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives, and analyzed using Stata version 14.2. Results: Among 274 MSK radiologists in North America, 190 (69.34%) were men and 84 (30.66%) were women, indicating a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 6.34; p value = 0.042). The available number of female assistant professors (n = 50) was more than half of the male assistant professors (n = 88), this ratio however, plummeted at higher academic ranks, with only one-fourth of women (n = 11) professors compared to men (n = 45). The male MSK radiologist had 1.31 times the odds of having a higher h-index, keeping all other variables constant. Conclusions: The trend of gender disparity exists in MSK radiology with significant underrepresentation of women in top tiers of academic hierarchy. Even with comparable h-indices, at the lower academic ranks, a lesser number of women are promoted relative to their male colleagues. Further studies are needed to investigate the degree of influence research productivity has, in determining academic advancement of MSK radiologists. © 2017, ISS.Item type:Publication, A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades Open PDF(2009) ;Feramisco, J.D. ;Leitenberger, J.J. ;Redfern, S.I. ;Bian, A.Xie, X.-J.Background: Despite a dramatic influx of female dermatologists during the last 30 years, women in academic dermatology departments remain relatively clustered in junior faculty positions. Research in other specialties showing a disparity in the academic productivity of women has led to many hypotheses regarding factors that may place them at a competitive disadvantage. It is unknown, however, whether similar differences in academic productivity might also serve as barriers to advancement in dermatology, or whether any productivity gap actually exists in this specialty that experienced a more substantial entry of women. Objective: Because publication in peer-reviewed journals is one of the core measures of academic productivity used in the promotion process, we evaluated trends in the prevalence of female authorship in top dermatology journals during the last 3 decades. Methods: We conducted an observational study of trends in the sex distribution of US authors in 3 prestigious general dermatology journals (in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006) and 3 subspecialty dermatology journals (in 2006 only). Journals were chosen based on published impact factors and citation half-lives. Results: During the last 3 decades, the proportion of women authoring manuscripts in the 3 major general dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% of US-affiliated first authors (P < .001) and from 6.2% to 31% of US-affiliated senior authors (P < .001). Separate analyses by journal and by article type showed similar increases. The prevalence of female authors in subspecialty journals in 2006 was slightly more variable. Limitations: Although the publications selected for this study capture many of the most respected US journals in dermatology, they may not be representative of all journals in which dermatologists publish. Conclusions: Female dermatologists are authoring publications in growing numbers that match or exceed their prevalence in the academic and overall workforce. This suggests that other factors (differences in productivity outside of the publishing arena, differences in job descriptions or opportunities, differences in career aspirations, a lack of institutional support or flexibility, or gender bias) may be associated with the ongoing reduced advancement of women to senior academic dermatology ranks relative to their male colleagues, and further research is warranted to explore these possibilities. © 2009 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.Item type:Publication, Gender disparities in academic rank achievement in neurosurgery: A critical assessment Open PDF(American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 2020) ;Dossani, R.H. ;Terrell, D. ;Kosty, J.A. ;Ross, R.C.Demand, A.OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there are disparities in academic rank and promotion between men and women neurosurgeons. METHODS The profiles of faculty members from 50 academic neurosurgery programs were reviewed to identify years in practice, number of PubMed-indexed publications, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) attainment, and academic rank. The number of publications at each academic rank was compared between men and women after controlling for years in practice by using a negative binomial regression model. The relationship between gender and each academic rank was also determined after controlling for clustering at the institutional level, years in practice, and number of publications. RESULTS Of 841 faculty members identified, 761 (90%) were men (p = 0.0001). Women represented 12% of the assistant and associate professors but only 4% of the full professors. Men and women did not differ in terms of the percentage holding a PhD, years in practice, or number of publications at any academic rank. After controlling for years in practice and clustering at the facility level, the authors found that men were twice as likely as women to be named full professor (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.09-4.44, p = 0.03). However, when institution, years in practice attainment, h-index, and number of publications were considered, men and women were equally likely to attain full professorship (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.42-1.93). CONCLUSIONS Data analysis of the top neurosurgery programs suggests that although there are fewer women than men holding positions in academic neurosurgery, faculty rank attainment does not seem to be influenced by gender. © AANS 2020.Item type:Publication, A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments Open PDF(Academic Press Inc., 2017) ;Devine, P.G. ;Forscher, P.S. ;Cox, W.T.L. ;Kaatz, A.Sheridan, J.Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters (N = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments and perceptions of a more positive departmental climate. Following this initial success, the present study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation. Whereas the proportion of women hired by control departments remained stable over time, the proportion of women hired by intervention departments increased by an estimated 18 percentage points (OR = 2.23, dOR = 0.34). Though the preregistered analysis did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.07), the study has a hard upper limit on statistical power, as the cluster-randomized trial has a maximum sample size of 92 departmental clusters. These findings, however, have undeniable practical significance for the advancement of women in science, and provide promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.Item type:Publication, Gender disparities in multiple sclerosis research and leadership: A Colombian perspective Open PDF(Frontiers Media S. A., 2022) ;Casallas-Vanegas, A. ;Guío-Sánchez, C. ;Reyes-Mantilla, M.I. ;Restrepo-Aristizábal, C.Navas-Granados, A.Background: The neurological academic field is an illustrative example of persistent gender-related disparities reflected in compensation, funding, leadership, promotion, publishing, and recognition. Several studies indicate that neurology is one of the most underrepresented specialties with female physicians as first authors, but also has one of the highest gender payment gaps. Neglecting the role of women in academic leadership positions hinders the visibility and recognition of research and leadership in multiple sclerosis (MS). Increasing diversity within academia has positive effects, such as widening focus and expanding the plurality of research outputs. The gender gap and visibility of female MS clinicians and researchers remains an unexplored research topic in our country despite the rising number of female neurologists. Objective: This study aims to establish the gender distribution between researchers and clinical neurologists in multiple sclerosis in Colombia and raise awareness about gender disparities in this area. Methods: We applied a cross-sectional survey study of Colombian neurologists and neurology residents currently members of the Colombian Neurology Association. Mean and standard deviation (SD) were used for quantitative variables and frequency for qualitative variables. To evaluate the influence of gender, logarithmic regression was used. Data were analyzed in SPSS 26. Results: A total of 201 participants agreed to complete the survey, most of whom were female (n = 135, 67.2%). All the Colombian regions were represented in the survey. Of those surveyed, 31.5% (n = 64) had an interest in demyelinating diseases and MS, of which 46.8% (n = 30) were female. Of the women with MS training, only 50% (n =5) had more than three publications as the first author of a scientific article compared to men (n = 5, 83%). After adjusting the number of publications by gender, there were no significant differences between men and women (median 2.0[2, 1.21] vs. 2[2, 0.5], p = 0.904). However, only 16.6% (n = 5) of women had a visible academic, leadership, or teaching position compared with men 75.7% (n = 25). When adjusting the salary income by gender, we found a statistically significant difference between women and men (median 2.0 [5, 1.47] vs. 3 [5, 1.65], p = 0.006). Women in MS earned between USD 2,500 and 3,800 per month; while men earned between USD 3,800 to 5,070. Conclusion: Despite a higher number of female neurologists trained in MS in Colombia, our data suggest considerable differences and gender gaps with regard to diverse opportunities at the academic, salary promotion, leadership, teaching, and recognition levels between male and female MS neurologists. Copyright © 2022 Casallas-Vanegas, Guío-Sánchez, Reyes-Mantilla, Restrepo-Aristizábal, Navas-Granados, Guerrero-Gómez and Zuluaga.