PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.ChildrenViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Lufler, Rebecca S.
    ;
    McNulty, Margaret A.
    The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Goswami, Abhishek K.
    ;
    Kokabi, Nima
    ;
    Khaja, Minhaj S.
    ;
    Saad, Wael E.
    ;
    Khaja, Akram
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Difference in Teaching Evaluation Scores of Pediatric Faculty Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Tiedt, Kristin
    ;
    Webber, Sarah
    ;
    Babal, Jessica
    ;
    Nackers, Kirstin A. M.
    ;
    Allen, Ann
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations between faculty gender and milestone-based teaching assessment scores assigned by residents. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of milestone-based clinical teaching assessments of pediatric faculty completed by pediatric residents at a mid-sized residency program from July 2016 to June 2019. Assessments included 3 domains (Clinical Interactions, Teaching Skills, Role Modeling/Professionalism) comprised of a total of 11 sub-competency items. We used multilevel logistic regression accounting for repeat measures and clustering to evaluate associations between faculty gender and assessment scores in the 1) top quartile, 2) bottom quartile, or 3) top-box (highest score). Findings were adjusted for faculty rank and academic track, and resident year and gender. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 2889 assessments of 104 faculty were performed by 91 residents. Between assessments of women and men faculty, there were no significant differences in the odds of receiving a score in the top quartile for the 3 domains (Clinical aOR 0.99, P = .86; Teaching aOR 0.99, P = .93; Role Modeling aOR 0.87, P = .089). However, assessments of women were more likely to receive a score in the bottom quartile in both Teaching (aOR 1.23, P = .019) and Role Modeling (aOR 1.26, P = .008). Assessments of women also had lower odds of receiving the highest score in 6 of 11 sub-competencies. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that gender bias may play a role in resident assessments of pediatric faculty. Future studies are needed to determine if findings are replicated in other settings and to identify opportunities to reduce the gender gap in pediatric academic medicine.