PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Career MobilityViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Advancing Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Scoping Review Open PDF 
    (2025)
    Purpose: Multiple studies have described higher rates of attrition for women in academic medicine, but actionable strategies to retain women in the field have not been well studied in the current era. This study reviewed the existing literature for studied interventions to support the advancement of women physicians in academic medicine. Method: A scoping review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles describing interventions intended to support women physicians on September 12, 2022, and updated on August 23, 2024. All articles from inception of the databases through the search dates were included. Search terms included female physician , mentoring , leadership , career development , job satisfaction , advancement , and synonyms. Articles related to inequities in patient care, interventions related to nonphysician health care workers, and studies describing sexism without measured solutions were excluded from the analysis. Kirkpatrick's framework for the evaluation of educational programs was used to further classify results by 4 levels of evaluation for an educational or training program: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Results: A total of 2,813 articles underwent abstract screening and full-text review, with 64 articles included in the final analysis. Seven studies (10.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Only 2 studies (3.1%) specifically examined mid- or late-career women. Career development programs (15 [23.4%]), mentorship programs (10 [15.6%]), and women's interest groups (7 [10.9%]) were the most described interventions. Outcome measures were most commonly satisfaction with the intervention (22 [34.4%]), self-perceived improvement in skills (17 [26.6%]), and representation or recruitment of women into a field (12 [18.8%]). Conclusions: This study describes 64 articles of studied interventions to support the advancement of women in medicine. Additional studies are needed and should emphasize rigorous study methods, a focus on institutional solutions, and identifying and targeting the needs of women physicians beyond their early career.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mamtani, Mira
    ;
    Shofer, Frances
    ;
    Mudan, Anita
    ;
    Khatri, Utsha
    ;
    Walker, Rachael
    BACKGROUND: Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author. RESULTS: Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Editorial (Spring) Board? Gender Composition in High-impact General Surgery Journals Over 20 Years Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Harris, Chelsea A.
    ;
    Banerjee, Tanima
    ;
    Cramer, Monica
    ;
    Manz, Shannon
    ;
    Ward, Sarah T.
    Objective:  To quantify gender composition of 10 high-impact general surgery journals, delineate how board composition has changed over time, and evaluate qualification metrics by gender. Background:  Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards may contribute to the gender-based achievement gap in surgery. Methods:  We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial board gender composition among 10 high-impact general surgery journals in 1997, 2007, and 2017. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in editors’ H-indices, academic rank, and number of advanced degrees. Differences in editor turnover and multiple board positions were evaluated for each time interval. Results:  Over 20 years, the proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 5% to 19%. After controlling for time since board certification, no differences between men and women's number of advanced degrees, H-indices, or academic rank remained significant. Women and men were equally likely to hold multiple board positions (1997 P = 0.74; 2007 P = 0.42; 2017 P = 0.69), but men's editorial board tenure was longer across each time interval (1997–2007 P = 0.003; 2007–2017 P < 0.001; 1997–2017 P = 0.01). Conclusions:  Women surgeons have a small but growing presence on surgical editorial boards, and gender-based qualification differences are likely attributable to practice length. Men's longer tenure on editorial boards may drive some of the observed disparity by limiting new appointment opportunities. Strategies such as imposing term limits or instituting merit-based performance reviews may help editorial boards capture the field's changing demographics.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Does gender matter? Open PDF 
    (2006)
    Barres, Ben A.
    The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender equity in epidemiology: a policy brief Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Aldrich, Melinda C.
    ;
    Cust, Anne E.
    ;
    Raynes-Greenow, Camille
    ;
    International Network for Epidemiology in Policy
    The under-representation of women in leadership in scientific fields presents a serious problem. Gender diversity is integral to innovation and productivity, and inequality leads to loss of gender talent in science including epidemiology. This policy brief summarizes some of the key dimensions and determinants contributing to gender-equity gaps in epidemiology and other scientific fields, relevant to developed countries where there is more published evidence. Women in scientific fields hold fewer positions on editorial boards, lack equal representation in speaking engagements at conferences, and are less likely to publish or receive top tier grant funding. Reasons for these inequities range from unconscious bias, biased promotion systems, and traditional norms in the division of family life and labor in our society leading to the attrition of women in academia. Addressing the problem of gender inequity, as a component of gender inequality, will provide an ethical basis to advance innovation. Data on gender equity in the field of epidemiology are sparse. We call on academic institutions, professional societies and associations, and editorial boards relevant to epidemiology (as well as other academic disciplines more broadly) to take meaningful action to build an evidence base as to the extent of gender inequities in epidemiologic research, teaching, policy, and practice. We outline some of the necessary steps required to achieve gender equity, such as career development and mentoring programs, institutional support, and programs to address bias.