PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
39 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, A longitudinal analysis of gendered career trajectories and academic efficiency in North American MD/PhD faculty Open PDF(Informa UK Limited, 2026-05-28) ;Quon, Stephanie ;Joseph, MarissaKhosa, FaisalGender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing women's representation in higher education. Prior research highlights the underrepresentation of women in senior ranks and leadership roles, yet few studies have assessed these disparities using time-adjusted productivity metrics. This study aims to evaluate gender-based differences in academic rank, scholarly productivity, and leadership representation among MD/PhD faculty in North America, accounting for career length and institutional variability. A secondary analysis was conducted on a dataset of 6,149 MD/PhD faculty from 122 accredited North American medical schools. Time-adjusted measures of productivity, H-index per year and citations per year, were calculated. Gender differences in rank, productivity, and leadership were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests and descriptive statistics. Institutional-level representation of women in leadership roles was also analyzed. Women held significantly lower academic ranks than males and were underrepresented in departmental leadership roles. Despite achieving assistant and full professorships earlier, women were overall less likely to reach these positions. Males exhibited higher time-adjusted H-index and citation rates (p < .0001), with a compounded 3.5-year publication gap. Institutional analysis revealed stark variability: 38 institutions had no women in MD/PhD leadership roles, while fewer than 20 percent achieved gender parity. Gender disparities in academic medicine cannot be explained by productivity alone. Structural barriers, opaque promotion criteria, and institutional cultures continue to impede women's advancement and leadership. Addressing these inequities requires transparent policies, targeted mentorship, equity audits, and inclusive leadership pathways to support a more equitable academic workforce.Item type:Publication, Factors that influence the implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in healthcare leadership: A meta-ethnographic study Open PDF(Elsevier BV, 2022-09) ;Mousa, Mariam ;Skouteris, Helen ;Boyle, Jacqueline A. ;Currie, GraemeRiach, KathleenSummary Background Gender inequity in healthcare leadership persists and progress is slow, with the focus firmly on problems, barriers and on requiring women themselves to adapt and compete in a system not designed for them. Women are individually burdened to advance their careers, with little effort given to addressing systemic barriers in the health sector. A recent systematic review prioritised organisational-level approaches and demonstrated effective interventions. In this meta-ethnographic study, we further this work by examining factors in implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership. Methods The meta-ethnographic framework applied here follows the Noblit and Hare approach for synthesising findings and applying interpretive analysis to original research. We generated a new line-of-argument with insights for the healthcare sector. The protocol is registered (CRD42020162115) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Three academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS) were searched systematically between 2000 and 2021. Studies were analysed if they included organisational-level interventions that sought to measurably advance women in leadership. Study characteristics were extracted using a standard template for intervention details. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Data synthesis was conducted across 19 criteria of the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guide (eMERGe). Findings Fifteen qualitative studies were included. Analysis revealed three meta-themes that are central to successful implementation of organisational interventions that advance women in healthcare leadership: (1) leadership commitment and accountability, influenced by internal and external organisational settings, salient for long term outcomes and for developing an inclusive leadership culture; (2) intervention fit with individuals with consideration given to personal beliefs, preferences, experiences, capabilities or life circumstances, including capacity for leadership roles in their broader life context; balanced against maintaining interventional fidelity, and (3) cultural climate and organisational readiness for change, addressing traditional, conservative and constrictive perspectives on gender and leadership in health, highlighting the facilitating role of male colleagues. Interpretation This meta-ethnographic research extends past work by integrating empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of effective organisational level interventions, with the identification of pragmatic themes to generate, implement, evaluate and embed evidence-based organisational interventions to advance women in healthcare leadership. This work can inform initiatives and policymakers to generate and implement new knowledge to advance women in healthcare leadership.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, Women in Science. Experiences of Academics in Switzerland(Transcript, 2025-08-12) ;De Cia Annalisa ;Hellmüller, SaraMesok Khan, ElizabethWomen in science face particular challenges, such as structural inequalities, highly competitive work environments, and at times toxic cultures. This collection conveys the experiences of women academics in Switzerland, featuring insights from twelve scholars across various universities and disciplines. Each contributor shares their unique journey in pursuit of a professorship, illustrating the rich diversity of the Swiss scientific community. This volume offers hope for those struggling with finding their place in science, emphasizing the joys and privileges that can be found in an academic career and the passion and perseverance of those pursuing it.Item type:Publication, Gender differences in leadership positions among academic nuclear medicine specialists in Canada and the United States Open PDF(2019) ;Moghimi, S. ;Khurshid, K. ;Jalal, S. ;Qamar, S.R.Nicolaou, S.OBJECTIVE. Despite equal representation of genders among medical students, women continue to be underrepresented in the field of academic diagnostic radiology. These differences are manifest across subspecialties in academic medicine and even in diagnostic radiology. There are limited data available addressing diversity among nuclear medicine specialists. Thus, our primary objective was to compare gender representation in academic and leadership positions among faculty members in nuclear medicine in Canada and the United States. Our secondary objective was to study the influences to account for the existing disparity in academic nuclear medicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS), we created a database of faculty members in nuclear medicine. For assessment of academic performance, the h-index, number of publications, number of citations, and years of active research were extracted using Scopus. RESULTS. The academic ranks of 237 faculty members were used for analysis; of this group, 16.95% of associate professors were female. Women were less frequently represented in higher academic ranks, and women were also less frequently represented in leadership ranks (13.6% female vs 86.4% male). The h-index was comparable across genders. CONCLUSION. Female nuclear medicine specialists are underrepresented in academic and leadership positions compared with their male counterparts. This difference in numbers is unlikely to be because of academic performance given that both genders had comparable academic performance metrics in our study. The results show the need for devising strategies to promote diversity in academic and leadership positions across nuclear medicine specialists. © American Roentgen Ray Society.Item type:Publication, Impact of a Women-focused Professional Organization on Academic Retention and Advancement: Perceptions From a Qualitative Study Open PDF(2019) ;Lin, Michelle P. ;Lall, Michelle D. ;Samuels-Kalow, Margaret ;Das, DevjaniLinden, Judith A.OBJECTIVES: Organizations to promote career networking and mentorship among women are recommended as a best practice to support the recruitment and retention of women physicians; however, the impact of such organizations is unknown. Our primary objective is to describe the impact of a national woman-focused organization for academic emergency physicians on retention and advancement. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of past and present organization leaders, as well as members at varying stages in their careers. Physicians with experience in qualitative methods conducted interviews and coded all transcripts using inductive content analysis techniques. Themes were reviewed and discussed to ensure consensus. RESULTS: We performed 17 interviews lasting 20 to 30 minutes each, resulting in 476 total minutes of transcript. Participants represented varying stages of career experience, ranging from 2 to 35 years since residency completion (median = 9.5 years). Median years of participation in the woman-focused organization was 10 years. Over half (53%) of participants were past presidents of the organization. The dominant themes encompassed facilitating academic advancement through scholarly productivity, leadership experiences, awards, and promotions; mentorship and sponsorship; peer support and collaborations; reduced professional isolation; and initiatives to address systemic gender inequities and challenges, including strategies to navigate bias, promote pay equity, and advocate for family-friendly workplace policies. DISCUSSION: Active participation in a woman-focused professional organization enhances members' career retention and advancement by creating opportunities and relationships that facilitate leadership, enabling scholarly work to advance equity and inclusion, and cultivating a sense of belonging. While challenges and barriers persist, the myriad benefits of a women-focused professional organization reported by members and leaders represent important steps toward greater equity for women and other underrepresented groups in academic medicine.Item type:Publication, Women in radiology: gender diversity is not a metric-it is a tool for excellence Open PDF(2020) ;Kubik-Huch, Rahel A. ;Vilgrain, Valérie ;Krestin, Gabriel P. ;Reiser, Maximilian F.Attenberger, Ulrike I.Women in Focus: Be Inspired was a unique programme held at the 2019 European Congress of Radiology that was structured to address a range of topics related to gender and healthcare, including leadership, mentoring and the generational progression of women in medicine. In most countries, women constitute substantially fewer than half of radiologists in academia or private practice despite frequently accounting for at least half of medical school enrolees. Furthermore, the proportion of women decreases at higher academic ranks and levels of leadership, a phenomenon which has been referred to as a "leaky pipeline". Gender diversity in the radiologic workplace, including in academic and leadership positions, is important for the present and future success of the field. It is a tool for excellence that helps to optimize patient care and research; moreover, it is essential to overcome the current shortage of radiologists. This article reviews the current state of gender diversity in academic and leadership positions in radiology internationally and explores a wide range of potential reasons for gender disparities, including the lack of role models and mentorship, unconscious bias and generational changes in attitudes about the desirability of leadership positions. Strategies for both individuals and institutions to proactively increase the representation of women in academic and leadership positions are suggested. KEY POINTS: • Gender-diverse teams perform better. Thus, gender diversity throughout the radiologic workplace, including in leadership positions, is important for the current and future success of the field. • Though women now make up roughly half of medical students, they remain underrepresented among radiology trainees, faculty and leaders. • Factors leading to the gender gap in academia and leadership positions in Radiology include a lack of role models and mentors, unconscious biases, other societal barriers and generational changes.Item type:Publication, The proportion of male and female editors in women's health journals: A critical analysis and review of the sex gap Open PDF(2020) ;Grinnell, Madison ;Higgins, Shauna ;Yost, Kelli ;Ochuba, OliviaLobl, MarissaBACKGROUND: Historically, women have been underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine. The reasons for this are multifactorial. In recent years, women's representation in medicine has improved. However, inequities in the proportion of men and women in medical leadership remain, especially with regard to editorial journal boards. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore current trends of women in leadership positions on journal editorial boards. METHODS: A comprehensive search for women's health journals was performed in collaboration with university librarians in February 2019 using EMBASE, Scopus, SciFinder, and MEDLINE records for journals with relevance to women's health. Each journal was e-mailed to verify the accuracy of the journal editorial boards listed on their respective webpages. Five categories, as well as the totals for each journal, were analyzed for the proportion of women versus men: editor-in-chief, associate editor, deputy editor, and section editor, and other. RESULTS: Women comprised the minority of positions on women's health editorial boards. Of the total 1440 board members included, 602 members (42%) were women and 838 members (58%) were men. Women occupied 54 of 132 editor-in-chief positions (41%), 257 of 596 associate editor positions (43%), 13 of 42 deputy editor positions (30%), 46 of 120 section editor positions (38%), and 232 of 549 other editor positions (42%). CONCLUSION: Although the sex gap in leadership in medicine is improving, it is still present. Our findings suggest that women are underrepresented as editors at most levels in women's health journals centered on topics such as reproductive health, obstetrics and gynecology, perinatology, gynecological oncology, and breastfeeding. With sponsorship/mentorship for women, flexible scheduling, and considerate thought in leadership appointment, this sex gap will continue to improve.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, AkramRATIONALE 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, Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Open PDF(2011) ;Zhuge, Ying ;Kaufman, Joyce ;Simeone, Diane M. ;Chen, HerbertVelazquez, Omaida C.Despite the dramatically increased entry of women into general surgery and surgical subspecialties, traditionally male-dominated fields, there remains a gross under-representation of women in the leadership positions of these departments. Women begin their careers with fewer academic resources and tend to progress through the ranks slower than men. Female surgeons also receive significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts and are more vulnerable to discrimination, both obvious and covert. Although some argue that female surgeons tend to choose their families over careers, studies have actually shown that women are as eager as men to assume leadership positions, are equally qualified for these positions as men, and are as good as men at leadership tasks.Three major constraints contribute to the glass-ceiling phenomenon: traditional gender roles, manifestations of sexism in the medical environment, and lack of effective mentors. Gender roles contribute to unconscious assumptions that have little to do with actual knowledge and abilities of an individuals and they negatively influence decision-making when it comes to promotions. Sexism has many forms, from subtle to explicit forms, and some studies show that far more women report being discriminately against than do men. There is a lack of same-sex mentors and role models for women in academic surgery, thereby isolating female academicians further. This review summarizes the manifestation of the glass-ceiling phenomenon, identifies some causes of these inequalities, and proposes different strategies for continuing the advancement of women in academic surgery and to shatter the glass ceiling.