PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Health PolicyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Li, Ben
    ;
    Jacob-Brassard, Jean
    ;
    Dossa, Fahima
    ;
    Salata, Konrad
    ;
    Kishibe, Teruko
    OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Medical publishing and peer review, 2021)
    Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar
    ;
    Dam, Rinita
    ;
    Milano, Maria Julia
    ;
    Edmunds, Laurel D.
    ;
    Henderson, Lorna R.
    Objective Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. Design Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. Setting NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Data Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). Main outcome measures Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. Results Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. Conclusions Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women's health and women's leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Carnes, Molly
    ;
    Morrissey, Claudia
    ;
    Geller, Stacie E.
    The term "glass ceiling" refers to women's lack of advancement into leadership positions despite no visible barriers. The term has been applied to academic medicine for over a decade but has not previously been applied to the advancement of women's health. This paper discusses (1) the historical linking of the advances in women's health with women's leadership in academic medicine, (2) the slow progress of women into leadership in academic medicine, and (3) indicators that the advancement of women's health has stalled. We make the case that deeply embedded unconscious gender-based biases and assumptions underpin the stalled advancement of women on both fronts. We conclude with recommendations to promote progress beyond the apparent glass ceiling that is preventing further advancement of women's health and women leaders. We emphasize the need to move beyond "fixing the women" to a systemic, institutional approach that acknowledges and addresses the impact of unconscious, gender-linked biases that devalue and marginalize women and issues associated with women, such as their health.