学术医生中正教授级别的性别差异:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005695
Elizabeth A Marhoffer, Samer Ein-Alshaeba, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Jürgen L Holleck, Benjamin Rudikoff, Lori A Bastian, Craig G Gunderson
{"title":"学术医生中正教授级别的性别差异:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Elizabeth A Marhoffer, Samer Ein-Alshaeba, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Jürgen L Holleck, Benjamin Rudikoff, Lori A Bastian, Craig G Gunderson","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth A Marhoffer, Samer Ein-Alshaeba, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Jürgen L Holleck, Benjamin Rudikoff, Lori A Bastian, Craig G Gunderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005695\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005695","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:学术医学界晋升方面的性别差距已得到公认。然而,很少有研究报告了根据学术成果和国内或国际声誉(即职业生涯持续时间、出版物、基金资助和领导职位)调整后的晋升性别差异。作者对男性和女性在达到晋升基准方面的差异进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,并分析了这种差异在地域上和专业内的位置:从开始到 2022 年 8 月 17 日,对 Academic Search Premier、Business Source Complete、Cochrane Library、ERIC、GenderWatch、Google Scholar、Embase、MEDLINE、PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 进行了系统检索。所有报告了医学院教师中男性和女性全职教授人数的研究都被纳入其中。主要结果是女性与男性晋升为正教授的调整后几率比(AOR):结果:244 项研究符合纳入标准。女性晋升为正教授的未调整 OR 为 0.38(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.36, 0.41)。16 项研究报告了 AOR。女性晋升为正教授的汇总 AOR 为 0.60(95% CI,0.46,0.77)。外科晋升为正教授的 AOR 为 0.55(95% CI,0.34,0.88),内科为 0.80(95% CI,0.57,1.11)。统计异质性很高(Q = 66.6,I2 = 79.4%,P < .001)。在元回归中,77%的异质性来自美国以外的研究,而美国以外的研究报告了更多的差异(AOR,0.29;95% CI,0.22,0.38):大多数研究仍然发现女性的晋升率有所下降。结论:大多数研究仍然发现女性的晋升率有所下降。性别差异在外科手术和美国以外的研究中尤为明显。研究结果表明,晋升方面的差异是由于生产力和领导力的差异以及性别偏见造成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties.

Method: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men.

Results: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38).

Conclusions: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
U.S. Medical School Graduates' Placement in Graduate Medical Education: A National Study. Holistic Review in Applicant Selection: A Scoping Review. Sense of Belonging Among Medical Students, Residents, and Fellows: Associations With Burnout, Recruitment Retention, and Learning Environment. A Dedicated Graduate Certificate in Health Equity: A Novel Approach to Increase the Future Physician Capacity to Address Health Inequities. Assessment Tools for Patient Notes in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1