Women have made a significant progress in the medical profession, but despite this trend towards equality, the gender pay gap persists. This study investigates the determinants of earning differentials among physicians in Italy. This analysis is based on a dataset of more than 1000 doctors working in five hospitals in the Lombardy region. Data were collected through an online survey with a response rate of 48.7%. Women's concentration in the lower ranks of the career ladder, their lower propensity to work as private practitioners and their lower concentration in surgical specialties contribute to the gender income gap. Having children and a spouse or a cohabiting partner entails a premium on income for men, but no penalty for women, which suggests that positive discrimination towards fathers and husbands is stronger than negative discrimination towards mothers and wives. On the other hand, the gender gap associated with marital and parental status is stronger in public hospitals than in private hospitals, at least up to the second child. Once differences in characteristics are controlled, women earn 18% less than men. This penalty should be ascribed to employer's discrimination and/or unobserved characteristics. These findings challenge the human capital perspective by calling for the role of structural mechanisms in producing inequalities.

Recently, the Italian higher education system has experienced two profound changes: the strong feminization of its academic staff and the implementation of market-based reforms aimed at fostering cost efficiency and economic productivity. Such reforms include the reshaping of the academic career ladder envisaged by the last university reform, the so called Gelmini reform (law 240/2010), and the adoption of a performance-based funding system. Both elements occurred in parallel with a strong cut in turnover. By accessing unique data on recruitment covering the last two decades, which were provided by the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research’s statistical office, this study aims at investigating these changes from a gendered perspective. More specifically, it firstly aims at analyzing if the feminization of the academic staff is due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment or, rather, to demographic dynamics; secondly, it investigates to what extent the recent neo-liberal transformations, and more specifically the reshaping of the career structure combined with the limitations on hiring, has had any implications in terms of women’s recruitment and advancement. The results suggest that the road to gender equality is extremely slow and non-linear. The introduction, with the Gelmini reform, of the new fixed-term assistant professor has tightened female access to the tenure track. Moreover, female recruitment remained substantially unchanged over the period among associate and full professors, thus suggesting that the feminization of the academic staff is not due to an effective improvement of gender equality in recruitment, but also to demographic dynamics, such as the retirement of men who are concentrated in the older cohorts.

Background and aim: Over the last decades, the incidence of melanoma has been steadily growing, with 4.2% of the population worldwide affected by cutaneous melanoma (CM) in 2020 and with a higher incidence and mortality in men than in women. We investigated both the risk factors for CM development and the prognostic and predictive factors for survival, stratifying for both sex and gender. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies indexed in PUB-MED, EMBASE, and Scopus until 4 February 2021. We included reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses investigating differences between women and men in CM risk factors and in prognostic and predictive factors for CM survival. Data synthesis: Twenty-four studies were included, and relevant data extracted. Of these, 13 studies concerned potential risk factors, six concerned predictive factors, and five addressed prognostic factors of melanoma. Discussion: The systematic review revealed no significant differences in genetic predisposition to CM between males and females, while there appear to be several gender disparities regarding CM risk factors, partly attributable to different lifestyles and behavioral habits between men and women. There is currently no clear evidence of whether the mutational landscapes of CM differ by sex/gender. Prognosis is justified by a complex combination of phenotypes and immune functions, while reported differences between genders in predicting the effectiveness of new treatments are inconsistent. Overall, the results emerging from the literature reveal the importance of considering the sex/gender variable in all studies and pave the way for including it towards precision medicine. Conclusion: Men and women differ genetically, biologically, and by social construct. Our systematic review shows that, although fundamental, the variable sex/gender is not among the ones collected and analyzed.