PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 24

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.
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, Nicole
;
Del Valle, John
INTRODUCTION: 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.
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, Devjani
;
Linden, 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.
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.
The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF
(2006)
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Guancial, Elizabeth A.
;
Worobey, Cynthia Cooper
;
Henault, Lori E.
;
Chang, Yuchiao
BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
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.
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, Emma
;
Jagsi, Reshma
Importance: 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.
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.
Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Open PDF
(2011)
Zhuge, Ying
;
Kaufman, Joyce
;
Simeone, Diane M.
;
Chen, Herbert
;
Velazquez, 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.
An Integrated Framework for Gender Equity in Academic Medicine Open PDF
(2016)
Westring, Alyssa
;
McDonald, Jennifer M.
;
Carr, Phyllis
;
Grisso, Jeane Ann
In 2008, the National Institutes of Health funded 14 R01 grants to study causal factors that promote and support women's biomedical careers. The Research Partnership on Women in Biomedical Careers, a multi-institutional collaboration of the investigators, is one product of this initiative.A comprehensive framework is needed to address change at many levels-department, institution, academic community, and beyond-and enable gender equity in the development of successful biomedical careers. The authors suggest four distinct but interrelated aspects of culture conducive to gender equity: equal access to resources and opportunities, minimizing unconscious gender bias, enhancing work-life balance, and leadership engagement. They review the collection of eight articles in this issue, which each address one or more of the four dimensions of culture. The articles suggest that improving mentor-mentee fit, coaching grant reviewers on unconscious bias, and providing equal compensation and adequate resources for career development will contribute positively to gender equity in academic medicine.Academic medicine must adopt an integrated perspective on culture for women and acknowledge the multiple facets essential to gender equity. To effect change, culture must be addressed both within and beyond academic health centers (AHCs). Leaders within AHCs must examine their institutions' processes, resources, and assessment for fairness and transparency; mobilize personnel and financial resources to implement evidence-based initiatives; and assign accountability for providing transparent progress assessments. Beyond AHCs, organizations must examine their operations and implement change to ensure parity of funding, research, and leadership opportunities as well as transparency of assessment and accreditation.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results