PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
7 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, 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, ÉlisaCohen, FleurOBJECTIVES: 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.Item type:Publication, Inclusive universities: promoting gender equality and sex-gender diversity Open PDF(Frontiers Media SA, 2026-02-12) ;Sánchez Torrejón, BegoñaMachín Álvarez, MacarenaINTRODUCTION: This study investigates the implementation of gender equality and sex-gender diversity policies in a higher education context, within the G-FORCE Project funded by Erasmus+. METHODS: Two focus groups (N = 20) were conducted with participants from the academic community, administrative staff, research personnel, and external stakeholders, ensuring diverse generational and gender representation. Data were collected through guided focus group discussions, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with an interpretive approach. RESULTS: Three dimensions emerged: (1) knowledge and awareness of gender equality and sex-gender diversity, (2) institutional practices and university policies, and (3) university culture. Results indicate that although participants are aware of existing protocols and training, these initiatives are perceived as isolated, minimally innovative, and largely symbolic. CONCLUSION: A gap exists between formal policies and actual practices, reflecting a bureaucratic culture that limits inclusive transformation. Resistance is present among faculty and students committed to equality, yet systemic barriers persist. The study concludes that effective inclusion requires structural change, curricular integration of inclusive perspectives, creation of safe spaces, participatory governance, and alignment of institutional culture with gender equality and sex-gender diversity.Item type:Publication, When perception is reality: Resident perception of faculty gender parity in a university-based internal medicine residency program. Open PDF(2019) ;Lukela, Jennifer Reilly ;Ramakrishnan, Aditi ;Hadeed, NicoleDel Valle, JohnINTRODUCTION: Although women have entered medical school and internal medicine residency programs in significant numbers for decades, women faculty remain underrepresented in senior and departmental leadership roles. How residents perceive this gender disparity is unknown. We sought to assess resident perception of gender parity among departmental leadership and teaching faculty in our internal medicine department, and to determine the actual gender distribution of those faculty roles. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to evaluate resident perception of gender representation of various faculty roles. Using conference schedules, resident evaluations, and our department website, we determined the actual representation of women faculty in department leadership roles, and in clinical and educational activities. RESULTS: 88 of 164 residents (54%) responded. Women residents were less likely than men to perceive that women faculty were equally represented in department leadership (45% men agreed vs. 13% women, p < 0.05), clinical teaching roles (55% men agreed vs. 28% women, p < 0.05), or facilitating educational conferences (45% men agreed vs. 28% women, p = 0.074). In 2017, the internal medicine department at our institution comprised 815 faculty members, 473 men (58%) and 342 women (42%). At that time, women faculty held 5% of senior departmental leadership positions and 21% of educational leadership positions. During the year preceding survey distribution, women faculty attended on internal medicine inpatient wards for 33% of the total number of weeks, staffed 20% of morning reports, and facilitated 28% of noon conferences. DISCUSSION: Women residents in our internal medicine training program perceived a gender disparity among faculty in leadership and educational positions to a greater extent than male residents. The perception of women trainees was accurate. In addition to disproportionate underrepresentation in leadership positions, women faculty were underrepresented in prominent educational positions, including attending on inpatient services and serving as discussants at educational conferences.Item type:Publication, Breaking the Gender Gap: A Two-part Observational Study of the Gender Disparity Among Korean Academic Emergency Physicians Open PDF(2020) ;Lee, Mi JinKim, ChangHoOBJECTIVES: Despite greater access to training positions and the presence of more women in emergency medicine, it has remained a men-dominated field. This study aims to identify the key issues causing the gender gap in Korea and establish measures to overcome them. METHODS: Using the annual statistical reports of the National Emergency Medical Center and data published on the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine website, cases that listed the current status and positions of members in its organization and its committees were analyzed. Secondary analysis was conducted using data from the 2015 Korean Society of Emergency Survey that included physicians' demographics, academic ranking, years of experience, clinical work hours, training and board certification, core faculty status, position, and salaries. RESULTS: As of September 2019, women account for only 12.7% of the total number of emergency physicians (EP) in Korea; of 119 chair/ vice-chair academic positions, women represented only 9.2%. Women EP were more often assistant professors and fellowship-trained, with fewer in core faculty. However, they worked the same numbers of clinical hours as their men counterparts. The median annual salary of women EP was less than that of men EP after adjusting for academic hospital rank, clinical hours, and core faculty status. CONCLUSIONS: A gender gap still exists among Korean EP, and women earn less than men regardless of their rank, clinical hours, or training. Future studies should evaluate more data and develop system-wide practices to eliminate gender disparities.Item type:Publication, Gender Disparities in Medical Student Research Awards: A 13-Year Study from the Yale School of Medicine Open PDF(Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2018) ;King, J.T. ;Angoff, N.R. ;Forrest, J.N.Justice, A.C.Purpose The Liaison Committee on Medical Education mandates instruction in research conduct, and many U.S. Medical schools require students to complete a research project. All Yale School of Medicine (YSM) graduating students submit a research thesis, and ∼5% are awarded highest honors. Gender disparities exist in areas related to physician research productivity, including academic rank, research funding, and publications. The authors asked whether gender disparities exist for medical student research. Method The authors conducted a retrospective review of 1,120 theses submitted by graduating medical students from 2003 to 2015 at YSM and collected data on gender, mentoring, research type, sponsoring department, and other characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling examined gender differences in medical student research awards. Results Women authored 50.9% of theses, but earned only 30.9% of highest honors awards (OR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.74). Among factors associated with increased receipt of highest honors that differed by gender, men were more likely than women to work with a mentor with a history of three or more thesis honorees, take a fifth year of study, secure competitive research funding, undertake an MD-master of health science degree, and conduct laboratory research (all P <.001). After adjustment for these factors, and for underrepresented in medicine status and sponsoring department, women remained less likely to receive highest honors (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.98). Conclusions Women YSM students were less likely to receive highest honors for medical research. Gender disparities in postgraduate biomedical research success may start during undergraduate medical education. © 2018 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Item type:Publication, Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF(2021) ;Ha, Giang L. ;Lehrer, Eric J. ;Wang, Ming ;Holliday, EmmaJagsi, ReshmaImportance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.Item type:Publication, Sex Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Surgeons in the United States in 2014. Open PDF(2018) ;Blumenthal, Daniel M. ;Bergmark, Regan W. ;Raol, Nikhila ;Bohnen, Jordan D.Eloy, Jean AndersonOBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in full professorship among a comprehensive, contemporary cohort of US academic surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work demonstrates that women are less likely than men to be full professors in academic medicine, and in certain surgical subspecialties. Whether sex differences in academic rank exist across all surgical fields, and after adjustment for confounders, is not known. METHODS: A comprehensive list of surgeons with faculty appointments at US medical schools in 2014 was obtained from Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty roster and linked to a comprehensive physician database from Doximity, an online physician networking website, which contained the following data for all physicians: sex, age, years since residency, publication number (total and first/last author), clinical trials participation, National Institutes of Health grants, and surgical subspecialty. A 20% sample of 2013 Medicare payments for care was added to this dataset. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate sex differences in full professorship, adjusting for these variables and medical school-specific fixed effects. RESULTS: Among 11,549 surgeon faculty at US medical schools in 2014, 1692 (14.7%) were women. Women comprised 19.4% of assistant professors (1072/5538), 13.8% of associate professors (404/2931), and 7.0% of full professors (216/3080). After multivariable analysis, women were less likely to be full professors than men (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.6-0.9). CONCLUSION: Among surgical faculty at US medical schools in 2014, women were less likely than men to be full professors after adjustment for multiple factors known to impact faculty rank.