PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 34

Advancing gender equity in gynecology and obstetrics: perspectives from the German workforce Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-08-27)
Neuhold, Jasmin
;
von Versen-Höynck, Frauke
PURPOSE: Despite the high proportion of women in medical education and clinical training, female physicians remain underrepresented in leadership and academic positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics in Germany. This study investigates structural and cultural factors contributing to this disparity and highlights trends in workforce composition and recognition in the field. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis using publicly available data from the German Federal Statistical Office and the German Medical Association (2004-2024), as well as database from the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). RESULTS: In 2023, women comprised 73% of gynecologists in Germany. Female representation declined with advancing career stage. In 2024, 82% of resident physicians at German university hospitals were women, while they held 26% of department head positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics. Female membership in the DGGG reached 75%, with 40% on the executive board. In 2022, 65% of major awards went to men, while women received most poster and lecture prizes (61%) at the biannual conference. CONCLUSIONS: While gender diversity in the clinical workforce has improved, systemic inequities persist in academic and leadership domains. Addressing these requires structural reforms, increased transparency in recruitment and promotion processes, and targeted programs supporting women's professional advancement. Enhanced visibility, mentorship, and inclusive institutional policies are essential to ensure gender-equitable development in the specialty.
Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications Open PDF
(Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2026-06)
Barnes, Leandra A.
;
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
;
Wind, Stefanie A.
;
Nord, Kristin M.
;
Laidlaw, Kathrina
BACKGROUND: The impact of rater bias in applicant selection for residency interviews using holistic review is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure faculty raters' bias toward applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status in their recommendations to offer residency interviews. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, applicant (n=3875) and faculty rater (n=69) data within a single institution's dermatology residency application database from 2014 to 2023 were examined for differences in rater judgments to interview applicants as measured by logits (ie, a standardized unit of scoring difference) using the many-facet Rasch model, a statistical method that accounts for variations among raters, applicants, and scoring for applicant gender (23% women, 14% men, and 63% unknown) and URiM status (26% White, 21% non-White non-URiM, 12% URiM, 41% unknown). RESULTS: Rater bias, as measured in logits using the rater severity measure, was minimal for applicant gender (-0.12, 0.08 logits) and URiM status (-0.07, 0.04 logits). However, raters were more lenient (ie, likely to favor an interview) when the applicant's and rater's gender (-1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (-0.46 logits, SE 0.05) were concordant. Conversely, raters were more severe (ie, unlikely to favor an interview) when discordant on gender (1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (0.46 logits, SE 0.05). More than 50% of individual raters exhibited substantial gender bias, and approximately 33% for URiM status bias when concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Raters were more likely to favor offering interview invitations to applicants with concordant gender or URiM status and less likely to favor interviewing applicants with discordant gender or URiM status.
Gender bias in guidelines and recommendations on rheumatology in Argentina: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-05)
Navarro, Belén
;
Sequeira, Gabriel
;
Kerzberg, Eduardo
Abstract Introduction Women constitute the majority in Argentine rheumatology research, but their participation in rheumatology guidelines and recommendations (RGRs) has not been evaluated. Objective To analyze women's representation in RGRs published between 2010 and 2024 that included at least one Argentine rheumatologist. Methods Cross-sectional bibliometric study of rheumatology guidelines and recommendations published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, including at least one rheumatologist affiliated with an Argentine center. Publications were identified through searches in PubMed, the Revista Argentina de Reumatología, and Google Scholar using predefined affiliation-based keywords. The main study variables were author gender, first and corresponding authorship, guideline classification national (NAC) or international (INT), and declared conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. Descriptive analyses were performed, and group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test and chi-square test. Results Eighty-seven RGRs were analyzed (79% INT), with a median publication year of 2021. Of 526 authors, 274 (52%) were women. In NAC RGRs, 57% of authors were women versus 43% in INT (p = 0.003). Among 25 first authors based in Argentina, 11 (44%) were women; among 12 corresponding authors, 5 (42%) were women. COIs were reported in 24 RGRs, totaling 59 declarations, 37 (63%) from men. Conclusions Although women are the majority among Argentine rheumatology researchers, their representation decreases in international publications and leadership roles. Conflicts of interest show a gender bias favoring men. Resumen Introducción Las mujeres son mayoría en la investigación reumatológica argentina, pero no se ha evaluado su participación en las guías y recomendaciones en reumatología (GRR). Objetivo Analizar la representación femenina en las GRR publicadas entre 2010 y 2024 que incluyeran al menos un/a reumatólogo/a con afiliación en Argentina (ARG). Métodos Estudio bibliométrico transversal de GRR en reumatología publicadas entre el 1 de enero de 2010 y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 que incluyeron al menos un/a reumatólogo/a ARG. Las publicaciones fueron identificadas mediante búsqueda en PubMed, Revista Argentina de Reumatología y Google Scholar utilizando combinaciones predefinidas en el campo de afiliación. Se registraron el género de los autores, la autoría principal y de correspondencia, la clasificación de la guía como nacional (NAC) o internacional (INT), y los conflictos de interés (COI) declarados. Se realizaron análisis descriptivos y comparativos (Mann–Whitney U y chi-cuadrado). Resultados Se analizaron 87 GRR (79% INT), con mediana de publicación en 2021. De 526 autores, 274 (52%) fueron mujeres. En las GRR NAC, el 57% de los autores fueron mujeres vs 43% en las INT (p = 0,003). Entre los primeros autores ARG, el 44% fueron mujeres; entre los autores de correspondencia, el 42%. Se declararon COI en 24 GRR (59 declaraciones), 63% correspondientes a hombres. Conclusiones La participación femenina es mayoritaria en las GRR NAC, menor en las INT y en los roles de liderazgo. Los COI muestran un sesgo de género favorable a los hombres.
Are there gender differences in academic medical career aspirations related to research, mentoring and discrimination? A national cross-sectional study of French medical residents Open PDF
(BMJ, 2026-05)
Deledalle, Aurore
;
Congard, Anne
;
Bour, Valentine
;
Sarda, Élisa
;
Cohen, Fleur
OBJECTIVES: Academic medical careers remain marked by persistent gender inequalities, despite the growing feminisation of the medical workforce. The objective of this study was to examine whether gender differences exist in key individual and institutional determinants of academic medical career aspirations among medical residents, including research motivation, mentoring, work centrality, self-efficacy, perceived discrimination and stress. DESIGN: This was a national cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted across 36 medical schools in France. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1570 medical residents (997 women and 573 men) voluntarily participated between November 2022 and February 2023. All participants completed validated self-report questionnaires. There were no exclusion criteria beyond being enrolled in a French residency programme. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes towards research (interest, motivation, significance) were measured using the Scale of Attitudes towards Research. Mentoring was assessed with the Mentor-Mentee Perception Questionnaire, work centrality with Hirschfeld and Feild's scale, self-efficacy with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, perceived discrimination with the Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Experiences of Academic Medical Faculty instrument and stress with the Perceived Stress Scale. Gender differences were analysed using t-tests or χ² tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Compared with men, women reported lower research motivation (mean (SD) 21.0 (5.5) vs 22.8 (5.5); padj=0.011), lower research interest (27.1 (5.5) vs 28.1 (5.7); padj=0.011), lower work centrality (26.7 (7.0) vs 28.2 (8.1); padj=0.011) and lower self-efficacy (28.3 (5.2) vs 29.9 (5.0); padj=0.011). Women were less likely to report having a mentor (38.5% vs 44.5%; padj=0.02). They also reported substantially higher levels of experienced gender discrimination (22.8% vs 3.8%; padj=0.005), sexual harassment (57.7% vs 18.2%; padj=0.005) and perceived stress (8.48 (3.29) vs 7.27 (3.43); padj=0.011) CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences were observed across several individual and institutional factors associated with academic medical career aspirations. Reduced access to mentoring and greater exposure to discrimination and stress among women may contribute to lower research motivation and self-efficacy. These findings highlight the need for institutional strategies addressing mentoring, workplace culture and equity to support gender parity in academic medicine.
“Breaking barriers: The power of self-efficacy in combating occupational stigma and advancing gender equity in nursing education” Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2025-06)
Atta, Mohamed Hussein Ramadan
;
Madkour, Asmaa Mohamed Ahmed
;
Hamad, Nagwa Ibrahim Mohamed
;
Abdallah, Haitham Mokhtar Mohamed
;
Alkubati, Sameer A.
BACKGROUND: Nursing students may encounter occupational stigma due to prevailing stereotypes and perceptions of nursing as a gendered and undervalued profession. Occupational stigma in nursing can contribute to decreased motivation, limited job satisfaction, and hindered professional growth, potentially impacting students' career choices and commitment to the profession. AIM: This research explores how self-efficacy can mitigate the effects of occupational stigma among nursing students and promote gender equity by encouraging both male and female students to pursue nursing confidently and with a sense of professional pride. METHOD: This study utilized a cross-sectional descriptive research design on 560 nursing students, which was conducted at the Faculty of Nursing, XXX University, XXX. Three validated instruments were used: The Nurse Occupational Stigma Scale, The Gender Equity Scale in Nursing Education, and The Student Self-Efficacy Scale. Multiple linear regression was conducted to identify predictors of occupational stigma and gender equity, with AMOS software used for mediation analysis. FINDINGS: Gender equity was negatively correlated with nurse occupational stigma (r = -0.124, p = 0.003), a positive correlation was found between gender equity and student self-efficacy (r = 0.098, p = 0.020), and nurse occupational stigma had a strong positive correlation with student self-efficacy (r = 0.345, p < 0.001). The structural equation model (SEM) suggests that self-efficacy contributes directly to perceptions of occupational stigma without mediation by gender equity. Significant predictors of gender equity included age (p < 0.001) and gender, with females reporting lower gender equity (p < 0.001), income level (p = 0.029), academic level (third level, p < 0.001), and self-efficacy (p = 0.002). For nurse occupational stigma, predictors included age (p = 0.023), income (p = 0.002), academic level (p < 0.001), and self-efficacy (p < 0.001). RECOMMENDATION: The findings of this study highlight the importance of fostering inclusive and equitable environments in nursing education and practice settings. Promoting gender equity may help reduce occupational stigma, thereby improving job satisfaction and retention rates within the nursing profession.
Reducing STEM gender bias with VIDS (video interventions for diversity in STEM). Open PDF
(2018)
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A.
;
Pietri, Evava S.
;
Hennes, Erin P.
;
Dovidio, John F.
;
Brescoll, Victoria L.
Gender biases contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM. In response, the scientific community has called for methods to reduce bias, but few validated interventions exist. Thus, an interdisciplinary group of researchers and filmmakers partnered to create VIDS (Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM), which are short videos that expose participants to empirical findings from published gender bias research in 1 of 3 conditions. One condition illustrated findings using narratives (compelling stories), and the second condition presented the same results using expert interviews (straightforward facts). A hybrid condition included both narrative and expert interview videos. Results of two experiments revealed that relative to controls, VIDS successfully reduced gender bias and increased awareness of gender bias, positive attitudes toward women in STEM, anger, empathy, and intentions to engage in behaviors that promote gender parity in STEM. The narratives were particularly impactful for emotions, while the expert interviews most strongly impacted awareness and attitudes. The hybrid condition reflected the strengths of both the narratives and expert interviews (though effects were sometimes slightly weaker than the other conditions). VIDS produced substantial immediate effects among both men and women in the general population and STEM faculty, and effects largely persisted at follow-up. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.
The workplace culture, mental health and wellbeing of early- and mid-career health academics: a cross-sectional analysis Open PDF
(2024)
Marck, Claudia H.
;
Ayton, Darshini
;
Steward, Trevor
;
Koay, Hui-Fern
;
Wiley, Joshua F.
There are reports of poor working conditions for early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) in universities, however, empirical data using validated tools are scarce. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using validated tools to assess workplace satisfaction, exposure to workplace abuse, and mental health. Participants included employees of medical and health faculties of two of the largest Australian universities, surveyed between October 2020 and January 2021.Overall, 284 participants responded. Many reported job insecurity: half (50.7%) working on contracts with less than one remaining year. Workloads were considerable, with 89.5% of participants working overtime and 54.8% reporting burnout. Workplace abuse in the forms of bullying (46.6%), sexual harassment (25.3%), sexism (49.8%) and racism (22.5%) were commonly reported. Clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.0%), anxiety (21.7%) and suicidal ideation or self-harm (13.6%) were reported; with a higher prevalence among those working more overtime, and those exposed to workplace abuse. Priorities include providing a stable and safe workplace, increasing accountability and transparency in addressing workplace abuse, and supporting professional development.In summary, EMCAs in our study were commonly exposed to precarious employment conditions and workplace abuse. Our findings provide empirical evidence on where universities and funding bodies should direct resources and change organisational risk factors, to improve workplace culture.
Gender Disparities in Authorship of Invited Submissions in High-Impact Psychology Journals Open PDF
(American Psychological Association, 2022)
Mackelprang, J.L.
;
Johansen, E.E.
;
Orr, C.
Women comprise the majority of graduates from psychology doctoral programs, but equity is yet to be achieved in the professoriate. Publication drives career advancement, underscoring the need to investigate publication-based metrics of eminence. To our knowledge, authorship of invited submissions—a proxy of research esteem—has not been the focus of any psychology studies. In this cross-sectional study, authorship of invited submission(s) in five elite psychology journals (2015–2019) was investigated: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Annual Review of Psychology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, and Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented. Author gender was classified using publicly available details (e.g., pronouns on professional websites). Primary outcomes were the proportion of women solo-, first-, or likely invited authors, relative to the proportion of women full and associate professors in psychology at R1 institutions (42.3%). Of 1,828 authorship positions (713 articles), 35.6% were occupied by women. Relative to the nominated base rate, women were disproportionately underrepresented. When the likely invited author on a multi-author publication was a woman, the first author was a woman on 51.0% of papers; when the likely invited author was a man, the first author was a woman on 34.1% of papers. These findings align with prior studies and extend the research by demonstrating that the gender publication gap in psychology is exacerbated in invited submissions and driven by particular subfields. Continued efforts are needed to redress gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions. © 2022 American Psychological Association
The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF
(2022)
Lufler, Rebecca S.
;
McNulty, Margaret A.
The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results