PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Disparities

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among speakers at major spine conferences Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-10)
    Lee, Yunsoo
    ;
    Issa, Tariq Z.
    ;
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    ;
    Carey, Preston
    ;
    Becsey, Alexander
    PURPOSE: To examine 10-year trends in gender representation in speaking roles at major spine conferences. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Medical conferences play an important role in career opportunities. There is little analysis on gender representation of major spine conferences despite several studies demonstrating gender disparities within spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SAMPLE: A total of 20,181 abstract speakers across 10 years of academic conferences for 6 spine societies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent of female abstract presenters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collated the annual meeting programs of six major spine conferences (North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Global Spine Congress (GSC), American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Spine Summit, and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS)) dating from 2013 to 2022. Departmental websites, society webpages, or personal social media were identified for images or the use of gendered pronouns in order to determine speaker gender for each speaker type. All categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Women constituted 1,816 (9.0%) of all 20,181 identified conference speakers. Female representation was highest at NASS (N=680, 12.2%) but lowest at CSRS (6.6%) and GSC (7.1%). Spine Summit (7.4%), IMAST (9.92%), and GSC (9.87%) demonstrated the largest annual percent increases in female representation. Institutions in Middle East and Africa (1.4%), and Central and South America (1.8%) supported the lowest percent of female speakers. Women were significantly less likely to be speakers or moderators/course faculty than to be podium abstract presenters (p<.001). The percent of women as invited speakers (10.4% vs 5.5%, p=.001) and moderators (11.4% vs 3.7%, p<.001) increased significantly over the study period, with annual increases of 8.8% and 20.8%, respectively, from 2013 to 2022 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: While academic spine societies have made significant progress in promoting gender representation, especially among invited speakers and session moderators, women continue to be underrepresented compared to the percent of women in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Hand Surgery Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Kalliainen, Loree K.
    ;
    Wisecarver, Ian
    ;
    Cummings, Allison
    ;
    Stone, Jennifer
    It has been long recognized that sex-based biases related to participant inclusion exist in research. To help address inequities in research participation, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act was passed into law in 1993. Although this act was primarily designed to increase inclusion of females and minorities in research funded by National Institutes of Health, it has also helped raise global awareness of the value of routinely including females and minority groups in research. Subsequent work has demonstrated a continued gap in inclusion of females in medical and surgical research and female animals and cell lines in basic science research. Hand surgeons have recognized that certain conditions have greater incidence in one sex over the other, but there has been no widespread discussion on whether, when, and how sex should be used as an outcomes variable. This review investigated the recent hand surgery literature to assess for equity in inclusion of both sexes in research as well as whether outcomes were analyzed based on sex.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender, Racial, and Academic Authorship Diversity in the Otolaryngology Clinical Trial Literature Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Yang, H.-H.
    ;
    Huynh, J.D.
    ;
    Moffatt, C.
    ;
    Evans, L.K.
    ;
    Bommakanti, K.
    Objective: To investigate the state and trajectory of gender, racial, and academic authorship diversity in the otolaryngology clinical trial literature over the past 2 decades. Study Design: Bibliometric analysis. Setting: Otolaryngology clinical trial literature. Methods: Clinical trials published in the 9 major otolaryngology journals between 2000 and 2020 were included. The gender, race, and academic seniority of the first, senior, and corresponding authors were recorded for each trial. Multivariable regression models assessed the temporal trajectory of authorship diversity over time and the disparity in citations across author characteristics. Models adjusted for relevant confounders pertaining to publication environment and study design. Results: Among 2117 trials, first, senior, and corresponding authors have been predominantly White (60%-64%), male (76%-80%), and attending physicians (63%-69%). Trials led by Black (<1%) and Hispanic (<5%) authors were severely underrepresented. Over time, the representation of female (adj. β 0.8%, 95% CI [0.5%, 1.1%] per year), Asian (1.0% [0.7%, 1.3%] per year), and MD resident (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%] per year) first authorship increased, but representation of female (0.2% [−0.1%, 0.5%] per year), Black (0% [−0.03%, 0.02%] per year), Hispanic (−0.2% [−0.33%, −0.02%] per year) senior authorship remained persistently low. Asian-led trials were cited significantly less compared to White-led trials even after adjusting for study design and publication year (aIRR 0.82 [0.73, 0.92]). Conclusions: Despite promising signs of improving authorship diversity over time, persistent underrepresentation of female, Black, Hispanic senior authorship underscore the need for additional efforts to diversify the otolaryngology clinical science workforce. © 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity Trends in Authorship of Hand Surgery Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Xu, Raylin F.
    ;
    Varady, Nathan H.
    ;
    Chen, Antonia F.
    ;
    Earp, Brandon E.
    Purpose Despite an overall trend towards gender parity, women continue to remain underrepresented in surgical fields. Until recently, women’s representation in hand surgery literature was largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to examine how authorship gender trends among academic hand surgeons have evolved between 2006 and 2019. Methods Original research articles published from 2006 to 2019 in 3 leading clinical hand surgery journals were extracted from PubMed. Publications with a full author first name were analyzed, and the gender of each author was assigned with the validated Genderize algorithm. Analyses were performed to evaluate authorship publication trends, unique authors, and research career productivity. Results From 2006 to 2019, 4,769 articles met the inclusion criteria, and the genders of 17,102 authors were identified. There were 2,848 (16.6%) female authors and 14,254 (83.4%) male authors. The proportion of female authors increased from 13.4% to 19.9% from 2006 to 2019. Similarly, female representation as first and senior authors increased significantly, from 10.9% to 20.1% and 7.6% to 14.2%, respectively. Of the 8,417 unique authors, 1,775 (21.1%) were women and 6,642 (78.9%) were men. Only 3.3% of these unique female authors published 5 or more papers during the study period. Among the 10 most frequently published authors for each gender, 18 of the 20 authors were surgeons. Conclusions There has been substantial progress toward gender parity in academic hand surgery over the last 14 years, and the proportion of women publishing in leadership positions has increased. Clinical relevance Increased gender representation in medicine and research is important for both patients and providers, and these findings suggest that ongoing support and mentorship for women in academic careers should be a priority.
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 and Gender Differences in Family Medicine Scholarship Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Wright, K.M.
    ;
    Wheat, S.
    ;
    Clements, D.S.
    ;
    Edberg, D.
    This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted submission rates to Annals of Family Medicine by gender. Women represented 46.3% of all manuscript submissions included in our study (n = 1,964/4,238), spanning from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2020. The overall volume of submissions increased during COVID-19 in comparison to pre-pandemic months; however, this increase was not evenly distributed among men and women (122% increase vs 101% increase, respectively). In the early months of the pandemic, 244 submissions were authored by men (58.5%), and 173 submissions were authored by women (41.5%). The gap in women’s submission rates is troubling, as it suggests they may be at greater risk of falling behind male colleagues during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2022, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of editor in chief gender and associated journal variables among 126 pathology journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Wang, Dayle K.
    ;
    Clark, Landon M.
    ;
    Stephens, Laura D.
    ;
    Adkins, Brian D.
    ;
    Khan, Shazia S.
    OBJECTIVES: Gender equity studies have shown that women are underrepresented in journal editor in chief positions, which confer major professional opportunities and influence. We sought to systematically investigate editor in chief gender and journal attributes within pathology. METHODS: We constructed a journal data set using the Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports databases. We also included official journals of the major medical societies for the 12 pathology subspecialties recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The final data set included 126 journals. We obtained editor in chief gender, impact factor, publication model (ie, hybrid access vs open access), year of founding, and geographic location for all included pathology journals. RESULTS: Women made up only 18% of the 141 total editor in chief positions. This inequity was present irrespective of all pathology journal variables studied. Among 10 journals with 2 editor in chief positions, 5 had only men and 5 had 1 man and 1 woman. All 3 journals with 3 editor in chief positions had 2 men and 1 woman. CONCLUSIONS: Women are significantly underrepresented among editor in chiefs across pathology journals. Journals and affiliated members should advocate for diversity among these influential positions, given their impact on research, science, and medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ending Gender Inequality in Cardiovascular Clinical Trial Leadership: JACC Review Topic of the Week Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Van Spall, Harriette G. C.
    ;
    Lala, Anuradha
    ;
    Deering, Thomas F.
    ;
    Casadei, Barbara
    ;
    Zannad, Faiez
    Women are under-represented as leaders of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials, representing 1 in 10 lead authors of cardiovascular trials published in high-impact journals. Although the proportion of cardiovascular specialists who are women has increased in recent years, the proportion of cardiovascular clinical trialists who are women has not. This gap, underpinned by systemic sexism, has not been adequately addressed. The benefits of diverse randomized controlled trial leadership extend to patients and professionals. In this position statement, we present strategies adopted by some organizations to end gender inequality in research leadership. We offer an actionable roadmap for early-career researchers, scientists, academic institutions, professional societies, trial sponsors, and journals to follow, with the goal of harnessing the strength of women and under-represented groups as research leaders and facilitating a just culture in the cardiovascular clinical trial enterprise.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Comparison of bibliometrics for predoctoral Translational Science Training (TST) TL1 Program participants and nonparticipants, male and female participants, and participants from underrepresented and well-represented backgrounds Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Frei, C.R.
    ;
    Chun, Y.-H.P.
    ;
    Mcmanus, L.M.
    ;
    Barker, J.
    ;
    Moore, A.M.
    Research education and training in Translational Science develops and sustains a workforce to efficiently advance studies designed to improve human health. We evaluated the effectiveness of a Translational Science Training (TST) TL1 Program. Participants had significantly better publications/year, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient than nonparticipants. Female and male participants, and participants from underrepresented and well-represented backgrounds, performed similarly on all bibliometric assessments. Finally, TST/TL1 Program participants outperformed students from other PhD programs at our institution. This analysis suggests that the TST/TL1 Program has been effective for participants, including those who are female and from underrepresented backgrounds. © 2022 The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in multiple myeloma publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Dweik, Aala
    ;
    Dweik, Hadeel
    ;
    Mian, Hira
    ;
    Mohan, Meera
    ;
    Schinke, Carolina
    Gender disparities exist in academia and are disproportionately affecting females. We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze gender disparities in multiple myeloma (MM) publications. A total of 679 publications with 8898 authorships were analyzed. The mean number of authors for females vs. males, per publication, was 4.4 and 8.7, respectively. Females constituted a third of the total authors. Female first authors, corresponding authors, and last/senior authors were 34%, 21%, and 18%, respectively. Note that, 17% of authors of clinical trial publications were females. Gender disparities in MM publications exist and are more obvious in the last/corresponding authorship. Efforts should be made to identify factors that contribute to these disparities and work to resolve them.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Agaronnik, Nicole
    ;
    Xiong, Grace X.
    ;
    Uzosike, Akachimere
    ;
    Crawford, Alexander M.
    ;
    Lightsey, Harry M.
    BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion. RESULTS: The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.