OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue.
RESULTS: Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 - 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 - 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 - 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 - 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 - 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals.
CONCLUSIONS: 60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals.

We sought to identify and prioritize improvement strategies that Critical Care Medicine (CCM) programs could use to inform and advance gender equity among physicians in CCM.
METHODS: This study involved three sequential phases: 1) scoping review that identified strategies to improve gender equity in all medical specialties; 2) modified consensus process with 48 CCM stakeholders to rate and rank identified strategies; and 3) in-person stakeholder meeting to refine strategies and discuss facilitators and barriers to their implementation.
METHODS: CCM.
METHODS: CCM stakeholders (physicians, researchers, and decision-makers; mutually inclusive).
METHODS: None.
RESULTS: We identified 190 unique strategies from 416 articles. Strategies were grouped thematically into 20 categories across four overarching pillars of equity: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Participants prioritized 22 improvement strategies for implementation in CCM. The top-rated strategy from each pillar included: 1) nominate gender diverse candidates for faculty positions and prestigious opportunities (equitable access); 2) mandate training in unconscious bias and equitable treatment for committee (e.g., hiring, promotion) members (equitable participation); 3) ensure equitable starting salaries regardless of sex or gender (equitable reimbursement); and, 4) conduct 360° evaluations of leaders (including their direct work circle of supervisors, peers, and subordinates) through a diversity lens (equitable culture). Interprofessional collaboration, leadership, and local champions were identified as key enablers for implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified stakeholder-prioritized strategies that can be used to inform and enhance gender equity among physicians in CCM under four overarching equity pillars: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Implementation approaches should include education, policy creation, and measurement, and reporting.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

NCCN produces highly influential disease-specific oncology clinical practice guidelines. Because the number of women in academic oncology has increased, we assessed whether the composition of NCCN Guidelines Panels reflected this trend.
Using historical guidelines requested from NCCN, we investigated time trends for female representation on 21 NCCN Guidelines Panels and analyzed the trends for female-predominant cancers (breast, ovarian, uterine, and cervical) compared with all cancers.
From 2013 to 2019, there was an increase from 123 women of 541 total panelists (22.7%) to 175 women of 542 panelists (32.3%). Within the 4 female-predominant cancers, the increase was more rapid: from 30 of 101 total panelists (29.7%) to 66 of 118 panelists (56.4%). Excluding female-predominant cancers, increases were minimal.
There could be multiple explanations for these differing trends, including the possibility of more rapid increases in the underlying pool of female physician-scientists in female-predominant specialties or more efforts to increase the representation of women in decisions about the standard of care in cancers predominantly affecting women.

暂无摘要。

While it is the goal of academic institutions to train male and female resident physicians equally, gender-related implicit bias may play a role in resident training, thus impacting the quality and fairness of education. Implicit bias may be one of the reasons for the discrepancies that exist in resident training, specifically in learning style, evaluations by faculty members, and treatment of female residents by other clinicians. Patterns of systemic gender-related implicit bias, we argue, remain pervasive in the healthcare system and affect medical education. This review identifies areas of surgical education that are susceptible to gender-related bias and provides recommendations to safeguard gender equity in resident education. We believe behavioral change can help maintain an inclusive learning environment. Using evidence from existing data, we generated guidelines to provide surgical educators in academic centers with information to further understanding of, training in, and steps toward overcoming gender-related implicit bias in resident education. Our guidelines include specific recommendations for educators to require training modules, remove bias from teaching resources, use formal introductory titles, maintain comparable evaluations, encourage women in surgery, adjust instructional methods, and caution self-reporting.