12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Gender Differences in Research Productivity among Academic Psychiatrists in Canada

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e177"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d764977e178">Objectives:</h5> <p id="d764977e180">Gender inequity in academic medicine persists despite increases in the number of women physicians. We sought to explore gender differences in research productivity for academic psychiatrists in Canada. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e182"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d764977e183">Methods:</h5> <p id="d764977e185">In a cross-sectional study of the 3379 psychiatrists in all 17 university departments of psychiatry in Canada, research productivity, as measured by the h-index and number of publications, was compared between women and men using a negative log binomial regression model to generate relative rates (RRs), adjusted for career duration (aRR). Findings were stratified by academic rank, institution region, and institution size. A subanalysis of those with 10 or more publications was conducted as a proxy for identifying physicians on a research track. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e187"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d764977e188">Results:</h5> <p id="d764977e190">Women (43% of the sample) had a lower mean (standard deviation) h-index than men (2.87 [6.49] vs. 5.31 [11.1]; aRR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.72). Differences were significant only for junior faculty and not for associate and full professors. Comparison by number of publications followed a similar pattern (aRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55). Among those with 10 or more publications ( <i>n</i> = 721), differences between men and women were smaller than in the overall cohort for both the h-index (aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) and number of publications (aRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e195"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d764977e196">Conclusions:</h5> <p id="d764977e198">Gender differences in research productivity at the national level in academic psychiatry in Canada support a call to adopt a more systematic approach to promoting equitable opportunities for women in research, especially in early career, to improve diversity and enhance future psychiatric research and discovery. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e201"> <!-- named anchor --> </a>Objectifs : <p id="d764977e204">L’inégalité entre les sexes en médecine universitaire persiste malgré l’augmentation du nombre de femmes médecins. Nous avons entrepris d’explorer les différences entre les sexes relativement à la productivité en recherche chez les psychiatres universitaires du Canada. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e206"> <!-- named anchor --> </a>Méthodes : <p id="d764977e209">Dans une étude transversale menée auprès de 3379 psychiatres des 17 départements de psychiatrie universitaires du Canada, la productivité en recherche, telle qu’elle est mesurée par l’indice h et le nombre de publications, était comparée entre les femmes et les hommes à l’aide d’un modèle de régression binomiale négative log afin de générer des taux relatifs (TR), ajustés selon la durée de la carrière (TRa). Les résultats ont été stratifiés par rang universitaire, région de l’institution, et taille de l’institution. Une sous-analyse des sujets comptant 10 publications ou plus a été menée à titre de substitut pour identifier les médecins qui sont en voie de recherche. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e211"> <!-- named anchor --> </a>Résultats : <p id="d764977e214">Les femmes (43% de l’échantillon) avaient une moyenne d’indice h plus faible que celle des hommes, 2,87 (écart type, ET 6,49) contre 5,31 (ET 11,1); TRa 0,62; IC à 95% 0,54 à 0,72). Les différences étaient significatives seulement chez les professeurs en début de carrière et pas chez les professeurs agrégés ou titulaires. La comparaison par nombre de publications a suivi un modèle semblable (TRa 0,46; IC à 95% 0,39 à 0,55). Chez ceux qui comptaient 10 publications ou plus ( <i>n</i> = 721), les différences entre les hommes et les femmes étaient plus faibles que dans la cohorte générale, tant pour l’indice h (TRa 0,77; IC à 95% 0,68 à 0,87) que pour le nombre de publications (TRa 0,62; IC à 95% 0,53 à 0,72). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d764977e219"> <!-- named anchor --> </a>Conclusions : <p id="d764977e222">Les différences de productivité en recherche entre les sexes à l’échelle nationale dans la psychiatrie universitaire au Canada pourraient justifier une demande d’adoption d’une approche plus systématique en vue de promouvoir des possibilités équitables pour les femmes en recherche, surtout en début de carrière, afin d’améliorer la diversité et d’accroître la recherche et la découverte futures en psychiatrie. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Gender bias in scholarly peer review

          Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.001
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence.

            Women are under-represented in academic medicine. We reviewed the empirical evidence focusing on the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine. Using a systematic search, we identified 52 studies published between 1985, and 2015. More than half had methodological limitations and most were from North America. Eight main themes were explored in these studies. There was consistent evidence for four of these themes: women are interested in teaching more than in research; participation in research can encourage women into academic medicine; women lack adequate mentors and role models; and women experience gender discrimination and bias. The evidence was conflicting on four themes: women are less interested in research than men; women lose commitment to research as their education and training progress; women are deterred from academic careers by financial considerations; and women are deterred by concerns about work-life balance. Inconsistency of findings across studies suggests significant opportunities to overcome barriers by providing a more enabling environment. We identified substantial gaps in the scientific literature that could form the focus of future research, including shifting the focus from individuals' career choices to the societal and organisational contexts and cultures within which those choices are made; extending the evidence base to include a wider range of countries and settings; and testing the efficacy of interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sex Differences in Institutional Support for Junior Biomedical Researchers.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
                Can J Psychiatry
                SAGE Publications
                0706-7437
                1497-0015
                October 30 2018
                June 2019
                January 07 2019
                June 2019
                : 64
                : 6
                : 415-422
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Undergraduate Medical Education Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
                [3 ]Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario
                [4 ]Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario
                Article
                10.1177/0706743718802798
                6591752
                30616409
                3402bbb4-4c5a-43fd-b177-03fc4c4edb67
                © 2019

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article