PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.North America

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Whitelaw, Sera
    ;
    Sullivan, Kristen
    ;
    Eliya, Yousif
    ;
    Alruwayeh, Mohammad
    ;
    Thabane, Lehana
    AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The landscape for women leaders in dental education, research, and practice Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Whelton, Helen
    ;
    Wardman, Margaret J.
    Following early limitations on women becoming educated in and practicing dentistry, the proportion of women enrolled in dental schools around the world has increased dramatically over the past decades. Dental schools have undergone a transformation from male dominance to almost equal numbers in the United States and female predominance in other countries including the United Kingdom. However, this change in student gender distribution has not been matched among academic leaders. Data from across the globe indicate a clear disproportion in favor of males in leadership positions in dentistry-and the more senior the position, the greater the imbalance. This article reviews the evolving changes in gender distribution across the landscape of dental education, research, and practice and some initiatives to address the gender imbalance in leadership. Such initiatives can help to ensure that, in the future, the profession benefits from the spectrum of influences brought to bear by the leadership of both women and men.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Addressing gender inequality in science: The multifaceted challenge of assessing impact Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Schmidt, E.K.
    ;
    Cacace, M.
    The analysis of the reasons behind the persistent under-representation of women in senior positions in science is well-developed. In contrast, the assessment of the impact of policies addressing the problem suffers from a lack of evidence and an oversimplification of approaches. Based on the assessment of 125 programs for gender equality implemented in research organizations in Europe, North America, and Australia, we argue that holistic approaches and multidimensional frames of reference are needed for impact assessment, also to improve program design and policy. Our analysis shows that the problem of gender inequality is rooted in so many and interrelated factors that program impact assessment has to be multidimensional and complex. Having a conceptual approach grounded in the notion of complexity as a point of departure, the article presents an innovative impact assessment tool, pointing to effective ways to assess the impact of gender equality programs. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Illuminating the (in)visibility of female scholars: a gendered analysis of publishing rates within educational technology journals from 2004 to 2015 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Scharber, C.
    ;
    Pazurek, A.
    ;
    Ouyang, F.
    This research study utilized bibliometric methods to analyze publication rates among female and male lead authors in six prominent, peer-reviewed journals in Educational Technology (ET) fields over the past 12 years. The aim of the inquiry was to determine if differences or trends exist in the number of articles published by each gender. Data analysis revealed notable differences in publication rates between genders, and key findings indicate that while women overall published less than half of the articles from all journals sampled, two journals with a focus on primary and secondary (P-12) educational contexts have consistently published more articles written by female lead authors than male authors. The findings of this study hold practical relevance in terms of addressing the (in)visibility of female scholars in ET fields and may be used to promote discussions and actions related to the intersections between gender, equity, and the culture of scholarly publishing. © 2017, © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
  • 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,
    Academic Radiology in North America: Underrepresentation of Women in Academic Ranks and Leadership Roles Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Qamar, S.R.
    ;
    Nayab, A.
    ;
    Walsh, J.
    ;
    Niu, B.
    ;
    Norbash, A.
    Introduction: Gender disparity persists in the top tiers of academic medicine and similar trends prevail in the leadership roles in North American academic institutions, despite an even gender balance of the medical graduates in North America. The purpose of our investigation was to study gender inequity in academic radiology in North America, by assessing and comparing the gender basis of academic rank and leadership roles as related to research productivity. Materials and Methods: The Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FRIEDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) were searched to generate a database of gender and academic profiles of radiology faculty members across academic institutions in North America. Bibliometric data were collected utilizing Elsevier’s SCOPUS as the reference source. Descriptive analytics were assessed using the SPSS (IBM, NY). Results: Of 151 academic radiology institutions across North America, academic rank information was available for 2679 radiologists of which 66.7% (1787/2679) were men and 33.3% were women (892/2679). Assistant professor (n = 1430/2679) constituted of 60.6% men (n = 866/1430) and 39.4% women (n = 564/1430) (p < 0.001 for the United States and p < 0.002 for Canada). Amongst associate professors (n = 679/2679), 71.1% are men (n = 483/679) and 28.9% are women (n = 196/679) (p < 0.001 for both the United States and Canada), while full professor (n = 570/2679), 76.8% are men (n = 438/570) and 23.2% are women (n = 132/570) (p < 0.001 for both the United States and Canada). Leadership roles are held by 418 faculty members, out of which 71.3% are men (n = 298/418) and 28.7% are women (n = 120/418). Conclusion: The majority of women academic radiologists are seen at the lowest rank of assistant professor, and are underrepresented in leadership roles. Women radiologists have less academic literature measures when compared with their male counterparts at all three ranks. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.