PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Family Medicine

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in the gender ratio of authorship at the Robert Graham center Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Wilkinson, E.
    ;
    Coffman, M.
    ;
    Huffstetler, A.
    ;
    Bazemore, A.
    ;
    Jabbarpour, Y.
    Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach. © 2020, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in research: A bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sebo, P.
    ;
    Maisonneuve, H.
    ;
    Fournier, J.P.
    Background: Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics. Methods: This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: Author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations. Results: The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]). Conclusions: The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed. © The Author(s) 2020.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sebo, P.
    ;
    de Lucia, S.
    ;
    Vernaz, N.
    Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians. © 2020, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    A glass ceiling within academic general practice in Western Europe: Career-inhibiting and -facilitating factors for female general practitioners Open PDF 
    (2006)
    De Jong, G.M.
    ;
    Lagro-Janssen, A.L.M.
    WONCA 2004 in Orlando, Florida, provided the stage for a symposium on “Challenges for Women in Family Medicine”, organized by the WONCA Working Party on Women and Family Medicine. This international symposium provided a review of what women family physicians are doing to confront challenges in education, clinical practice, academia, organizations and leadership Citation[1]. Representing Europe, the results of a unique study on the latter subject were presented.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Family Medicine in North American Medical Schools
    (2020)
    Chen, Szu-Yu Tina
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Ahmadi, Maryam
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Bhulani, Nizar
    Background Women physicians continue to comprise the minority of leadership roles in Academic Family Medicine (AFM) faculty across North American medical schools. Our study quantified the current state of gender disparity by analyzing academic position, leadership ranking, and research productivity. Methods We generated a database for 6,746 AFM faculty members. Gender and academic profiles were obtained for 2,892 academic ranks and 1,706 leadership roles by searching faculty listings enlisted in Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). To measure research productivity, we obtained bibliometric data: h-index, citations, and tenure from 2,383 faculty members using Elsevier's SCOPUS archives. Data analysis and h-index were formulated using Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). Results Our results indicated that women hold 46.11% (3,110/6,746) of faculty positions. The proportional composition decreased with increasing academic ranking (49.84% assistant, 46.78% associate, and 41.5% full professor). The same decreasing trend was demonstrated with leadership rank (57.14% minor leadership, 47.65% second-in-command, and 36.61 first-in-command). Compared to their gender counterparts, women in AFM demonstrated lower publication productivity as measured by citation number (p=0.04) and years of study (p=0.008). The final prediction equation model after multivariable analyses included gender, publications, citations, country of graduation, and years of active research (p<0.05). Conclusions The composition of academic family medicine faculty members included in this study demonstrated gender disparity. Inclusivity initiatives and policies to tackle the issue of female retention, promotion, and recruitment need to be further explored.