Gender and Subspecialty of Urology Faculty in Department-based Leadership Roles

Han, Julia; Stillings, Stephanie A.; Hamann, Harold C.; Terry, Russell; Moy, Louis

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.044

Cited by 65 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No studies beyond those identified were revealed by the 17 contacted scholars. Original data were available for 40 studies, described in 42 articles5 15 52–91 (see online supplementary material 1 for an overview of included studies).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where questionnaires were used, the response rates ranged from 22% to 100%. Thirteen studies were cross-sectional surveys of publicly available or archives of data,54 57 59 60 65 67 69 72 74 77–79 90 and one study was a case report 71…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the studies have methodological limitations. Twelve studies used websites and publicly available data 15 54–56 59 63 67 69 78 87 90. Six studies did not reveal how their questionnaires were developed or if they were tested 63 65 66 83 84 89 91.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Women’s leadership in academic medicine: a systematic review of extent, condition and interventions

Alwazzan

Al‐Angari

2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesBecause culture reflects leadership, the making of diverse and inclusive medical schools begins with diversity among leaders. The inclusion of women leaders remains elusive, warranting a systematic exploration of scholarship in this area. We ask: (1) What is the extent of women’s leadership in academic medicine? (2) What factors influence women’s leadership? (3) What is the impact of leadership development programmes?DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesA systematic search of six online databases (OvidMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and ERIC) from the earliest date available to April 2018 was conducted. Bridging searches were conducted from April 2018 until October 2019.Eligibility criteria(1) Peer-reviewed; (2) English; (3) Quantitative studies (prospective and retrospective cohort, cross-sectional and preintervention/postintervention); evaluating (4) The extent of women’s leadership at departmental, college and graduate programme levels; (5) Factors influencing women’s leadership; (6) Leadership development programmes. Quantitative studies that explored women’s leadership in journal editorial boards and professional societies and qualitative study designs were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened retrieved data of abstracts and full-texts for eligibility, assessment and extracted study-level data independently. The included studies were objectively appraised using the Medical Education Research Quality Study Instrument with an inter-rater reliability of (κ=0.93).ResultsOf 4024 records retrieved, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria. The extent of women’s leadership was determined through gender distribution of leadership positions. Women’s leadership emergence was hindered by institutional requirements such as research productivity and educational credentials, while women’s enactment of leadership was hindered by lack of policy implementation. Leadership development programmes had a positive influence on women’s individual enactment of leadership and on medical schools’ cultures.ConclusionsScholarship on women’s leadership inadvertently produced institute-centric rather than women-centric research. More robust contextualised scholarship is needed to provide practical-recommendations; drawing on existing conceptual frameworks and using more rigorous research methods.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Women’s leadership in academic medicine: a systematic review of extent, condition and interventions

Alwazzan

Al‐Angari

2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Women remain under-represented in senior faculty roles in urology. 14 Other possible explanations may include that there may be more opportunities for men than females within the field. The urologic patient population is majority male (70%), studies have shown that a majority of patients prefer a provider of the same gender.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 Compared to men, women in medicine remain under-represented in administrative leadership positions, have not achieved similar promotion progress and are paid less compared to men. [14][15][16] Our group previously reported that, in a small cohort of academic urologists, men advanced to Associate Professor at an average of 1.2 years faster than women. 17 Academic promotion relies on multiple factors including scholarly output, administrative duties, service to one's institution or specialty, and involvement in medical education.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Promotion Disparities in Academic Urology

Breyer

Butler

Fang

et al. 2020

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To better understand promotion timelines across gender and race/ethnicity and how academic output impacts promotion in urology. METHODS We examined the 2017 census. An academic subset was asked questions regarding their promotion timeline. We obtained demographic, academic output, and family responsibility data. RESULTS Of 2926 academic urologists who identified a position of Assistant, Associate, or Full professor, 11.2% were women, 75% were White, and 94% were non-Hispanic. Men authored more papers and achieved principal investigator status more often than women. Non-Hispanics authored more papers than Hispanics. On average, women took 1.

show abstract

Frauenförderung in der Urologie am Beispiel der Habilitation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Der Anteil an Ärztinnen im Fachgebiet Urologie nimmt stetig zu. Dabei ist die zunehmende Feminisierung in Führungspositionen noch nicht angekommen. Eine Habilitation, die die Grundlage für eine wissenschaftlich erfolgreiche Karriere ist, wird von Urologinnen in Deutschland deutlich seltener als von ihren männlichen Kollegen erreicht. Ziel der Arbeit Um Faktoren für eine effektivere Förderung von Frauen in der Urologie zu identifizieren, wurden die aktuelle Situation sowie Einflussfaktoren auf eine erfolgreiche Habilitation von Frauen in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie e. V. (DGU) untersucht. Methodik Ein Online-Fragebogen wurde an 1343 weibliche Mitglieder der DGU in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz verschickt. Die Antworten von 521 Ärztinnen wurden bezüglich Basischarakteristika und in Bezug auf Forschungsförderung statistisch ausgewertet. Der primäre Endpunkt der vorliegenden Arbeit war die Habilitationsrate. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurde der Fragebogen von 521 in der Urologie beschäftigten Ärztinnen zwischen 25 und 67 (Median 37) Jahren ausgefüllt. Hiervon waren die meisten Ärztinnen in Weiterbildung (n = 168, 32 %), arbeiteten in Vollzeit (n = 324, 62 %) und hatten Kinder (n = 277, 53 %). Insgesamt waren 359 (69 %) der Teilnehmerinnen promoviert und 63 (12 %) arbeiteten noch an ihrer Promotion. 30 (5,8 %) Urologinnen waren habilitiert. In univariablen logistischen Regressionsmodellen waren das Alter (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1,06), das Arbeitszeitmodell (Teilzeit OR: 0,19), ein Forschungsaufenthalt (OR: 21,4), eine Freistellung (OR: 13,7), die Teilnahme an einem Förderprogramm (OR: 6,9) oder Mentoring-Programm (OR: 7,0) unabhängige Prädiktoren für eine erreichte Habilitation. Ob eine Urologin Kinder hatte, war kein unabhängiger Prädiktor. In multivariablen logistischen Regressionsmodellen waren Alter (OR: 1,08) sowie ein Forschungsaufenthalt (OR: 9,04) unabhängige Prädiktoren für eine erreichte Habilitation. Schlussfolgerungen Eine Förderung von Habilitationen unter Ärztinnen im Fachgebiet Urologie erscheint erstrebenswert, um den Frauenanteil in Führungspositionen zu steigern. Die Ergebnisse der Datenauswertung zeigen, dass insbesondere die Förderung von Forschungsaufenthalten explizit für Frauen ein vielversprechender Ansatz ist.

show abstract

Gender and Subspecialty of Urology Faculty in Department-based Leadership Roles

Cited by 65 publications

References 7 publications

Women’s leadership in academic medicine: a systematic review of extent, condition and interventions

Women’s leadership in academic medicine: a systematic review of extent, condition and interventions

Promotion Disparities in Academic Urology

Frauenförderung in der Urologie am Beispiel der Habilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About