PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.SpanishSubject: search.filters.subject.Leadership

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2024-03)
    Cayón Somacarrera, S.
    ;
    Alonso Rodríguez, C.
    ;
    del Campo del Val, L.
    ;
    Oleaga Zufiría, L.
    ;
    Rodríguez Carnero, P.
    Abstract Introduction There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States. Materials and methods We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments. Results The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM’s history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%. Conclusions Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality. Resumen Introducción Existen desigualdades por razón de género en todos los ámbitos, incluyendo en la radiología. Aunque la situación está mejorando, la presencia de radiólogas en puestos de liderazgo continúa siendo minoritaria. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la situación de la mujer en la radiología española, comparándola con Europa y EE.UU. Materiales y métodos Seleccionamos como franja de referencia los años 2000–2022 para hacer una comparación con datos de feminización a lo largo de la historia. Además también se incluyeron datos puntuales relevantes del recién comenzado 2023. Las variables en las que investigamos la feminización fueron las siguientes: estudiantes de medicina, médicos graduados, residentes y especialistas en radiodiagnóstico, jefes de sección, jefes de servicio, tutores de residentes de radiodiagnóstico, radiólogos profesores universitarios, presidentes de las principales entidades y sociedades radiológicas de España, Europa y EE.UU, receptores de los principales galardones de dichas sociedades radiológicas y editores jefe de sus revistas. Para ello realizamos una amplia búsqueda bibliográfica, contactamos con las sociedades radiológicas de España, Europa y EE.UU y realizamos una encuesta a los principales servicios de radiodiagnóstico de España. Resultados La presencia femenina en radiología va disminuyendo a medida que ascendemos a puestos de liderazgo, situación que se constata tanto en España como en Europa y EE.UU, comparativa que analizaremos en profundidad a lo largo del artículo. En los hospitales españoles en el año 2021 había un 58,1% de mujeres residentes de radiodiagnóstico, 55% de radiólogas, 42,9% de jefas de sección y 24,4% de jefas de servicio. En la historia de la SERAM ha habido un 10% de mujeres presidentas, un 22% de mujeres medallas de oro y un 5% de editoras jefe. Analizando los datos del año 2000 al 2023 el porcentaje de presidentas alcanza el 32% y las mujeres medallas de oro el 31%. Conclusiones Aunque la desigualdad de género está disminuyendo, en radiología las mujeres continúan estando infrarrepresentadas en puestos de liderazgo. Es preciso trabajar para crear una profesión diversa e inclusiva que refleje la realidad demográfica.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diferencias de género en Anestesiología. ¿En qué punto nos encontramos en España? Resultados de una encuesta nacional Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2020-08)
    Aliaño, M.
    ;
    Franco, G.
    ;
    Gilsanz, F.
    Resumen Objetivo En la última década se han publicado numerosos trabajos en los que se pone de manifiesto la persistencia de diferencias de género en medicina. La finalidad de este estudio fue investigar si este problema existe en la especialidad de Anestesiología en España. Métodos El estudio se llevó a cabo mediante una encuesta anónima que se distribuyó entre los especialistas en Anestesiología. El cuestionario estaba formado por 39 preguntas diseñadas para investigar la situación profesional, laboral y personal, así como las percepciones individuales en relación con la discriminación de género en el trabajo. Resultados Se incluyeron 1.619 encuestas, lo que representa el 17,6% del total de anestesiólogos de España; 654 participantes fueron hombres (40,4%) y 965 mujeres (59,6%). Las mayores diferencias fueron observadas en las siguientes áreas: el 70,0% de participantes informaron de que su jefe de servicio es un hombre. En relación con los puestos de liderazgo, el 25,2% de las mujeres que respondieron a la encuesta habían desempeñado algún puesto de confianza frente al 46,1% de los hombres (p < 0,001). En cuanto a la posición académica, el 10,3% de los hombres respondieron ser profesores de universidad en contraste con el 4,8% de mujeres (p < 0,001). El 46,0% de las mujeres que participaron en la encuesta piensan que existe discriminación de género en su profesión, mientras que solo el 12,6% de los hombres lo reconocieron. Un tercio de las mujeres (36,6%) consideran su condición de género una barrera para promocionar y tienen miedo de perder su trabajo por quedarse embarazadas. Además, tanto hombres como mujeres han presenciado un trato diferente por parte de pacientes y personal sanitario hacia sus compañeras anestesiólogas. Conclusión Los resultados de esta encuesta demuestran que existe una brecha de género en Anestesiología en España. En concreto, las mujeres están poco representadas en puestos académicos y de liderazgo, y un porcentaje considerable de encuestados perciben diferencias de género en el trabajo. Este estudio puede servir para monitorizar futuros cambios en nuestro país y como ejemplo para investigaciones en otros países vecinos. Abstract Objective Publications of diverse medical specialties confirm that gender differences still exist in the medical field. This particular study aims to investigate whether this problem exists in the specialty of Anaesthesiology in Spain. Methods An anonymous survey was distributed among anaesthesiologists in Spain. It had 39 questions and was designed to investigate professional position, work conditions, personal situation, and individual perceptions. The goal was to target the majority of anaesthesiologists working in Spain. Results Completed surveys were received from 1,619 respondents which represents 17.6% of the total number of anaesthesiologists in Spain; 654 respondents were male (40.4%) and 965 were female (59.6%). The greater differences were found in the following areas: 70.0% of the respondents advised that their head of department is male. When asked about management and leadership positions, 25.2% of female respondents had ever had any management role in contrast to 46.1% of men (p < 0.001). Regarding academic positions, 10.3% of male respondents are university professors in contrast to only 4.8% of women (p < 0.001). 46.0% of the women surveyed believe that gender discrimination exists in the workplace whereas only 12.6% of men reported the same. A third of women (36.6%) consider their gender a barrier to promotion and fear losing their job due to pregnancy. Furthermore, both genders have witnessed patients and colleagues treating staff differently according to gender. Conclusion The results of the survey show the existence of a gender gap among Spanish anaesthesiologists. Of particular note, women are under-represented in academic and leadership positions. Additionally, a considerable percentage of respondents perceive gender-based discrimination to be active in their workplaces. This study could serve as a template for future research in other neighbouring countries and as a means to monitor any changes in coming years.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Evolution of Female Leadership in MedicineBibliometric Analysis and Evaluation of the Last 50 Years Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Mendoza, C.S.
    ;
    Gomez, A.P.B.
    ;
    Tobar, V.
    ;
    Carvajal, L.C.
    ;
    Vega, J.
    Objective Perform a biometrical analysis of female leadership in medicine, in order to know the actual perspective and guide future research. Materials and Methods: A retrospective descriptive bibliometric analysis of the literature available in MEDLINE was performed in relation to the leadership of female physicians from 1973 to 2019, through MEDLINE database, using GoPubmed and FABUMED. The following strategy was deployed: ("Leadership"[Mesh]) AND "Physicians, Women"[Mesh] (1973:2019[dp]). Original articles, journal articles, essays, scientific reports and reviews were included to analyze all related indexed literature. To obtain the impact factor (FI), the Journal Citation Reports (7) 2017/2018 of the journals found was used to estimate the quality of each one of them. Results A total of 310 references were found in 139 published journals, 71.2% were original articles; the remaining 22% were reviews. There was a 11.9% increase in publications from 1996 to 2019. The journals with the highest rate of publications were: Academic Medicine and J Womens Health (Larchmt) with 7.7% and 7.1%. Countries with the highest number of publications were United States with 66 (56%), and United Kingdom with 10 (8.6%). Latin America has four publications, while Colombia has none. Conclusion Female leadership in the medical field and the publications regarding this subject have increased in the last decades, mainly in developed countries. Latin America has to make significant efforts to produce more publications in journals with high impact factor, in order to close the gender gap in the medical field. © 2021 Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    [Glass ceiling and gender inequalities in the careers of women academics in biomedical sciences] Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Segovia-Saiz, Carla
    ;
    Briones-Vozmediano, Erica
    ;
    Pastells-Peiró, Roland
    ;
    González-María, Esther
    ;
    Gea-Sánchez, Montserrat
    OBJECTIVE: To identify in the international scientific literature the obstacles and potential promoters for the advancement of women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences during their professional careers. METHOD: PubMed, Scopus, CinahlPlus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched for articles published in English and Spanish between January 2006 and December 2016 on the phenomenon of the glass ceiling in women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences. The screening was carried out by independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 2254 studies were found, of which 23 were included in the review. The obstacles identified for the promotion of women academics and/or researchers in biomedical sciences are: gender bias in the evaluation of research results, individualism and lack of collaboration, women's lack of influence, the existence of gender inequalities in access to employment. The perception of sexism and discrimination in the work environment, and the difficulties in reconciling work and family life. The promoting elements are: examples of women in leadership positions, mentoring, facilitating conciliation, transparency in recruitment, participation in decision-making, gender assessment of research, awareness of gender inequalities in institutions, promoting collaboration, and pay equity. CONCLUSIONS: By enhancing the elements favouring the promotion of academic women in biomedical sciences would help to reduce the glass ceiling in the career paths of women academics and health science researchers by increasing their participation, leadership and representation. A change of organizational and institutional values is required to achieve this.