Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty presents new and surprising findings about career differences between female and male full-time, tenure-track, and tenured faculty in science, engineering, and mathematics at the nation's top research universities. Much of this congressionally mandated book is based on two unique surveys of faculty and departments at major U.S. research universities in six fields: biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics, and physics. A departmental survey collected information on departmental policies, recent tenure and promotion cases, and recent hires in almost 500 departments. A faculty survey gathered information from a stratified, random sample of about 1,800 faculty on demographic characteristics, employment experiences, the allocation of institutional resources such as laboratory space, professional activities, and scholarly productivity. This book paints a timely picture of the status of female faculty at top universities, clarifies whether male and female faculty have similar opportunities to advance and succeed in academia, challenges some commonly held views, and poses several questions still in need of answers. This book will be of special interest to university administrators and faculty, graduate students, policy makers, professional and academic societies, federal funding agencies, and others concerned with the vitality of the U.S. research base and economy.

This handy pocket guide is a quick reference for users interested in the gender statistics. It presents gender-disaggregated data for more than 200 countries in an easy country-by-country reference on demography, education, health, labor force, political participation and the Millennium Development Goals. The book's summary pages cover regional and income group aggregates.

There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are underrepresented in most scientific disciplines and publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly, though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equivalent career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in publishing career lengths and dropout rates explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact, although productivity differences still remain. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women’s careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.

The transition from medical school to residency is a critical step in the careers of physicians. Because of the standardized application process-wherein schools submit summative Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPE's)-it also represents a unique opportunity to assess the possible prevalence of racial and gender disparities, as shown elsewhere in medicine. The authors conducted textual analysis of MSPE's from 6,000 US students applying to 16 residency programs at a single institution in 2014-15. They used custom software to extract demographic data and keyword frequency from each MSPE. The main outcome measure was the proportion of applicants described using 24 pre-determined words from four thematic categories (\"standout traits\", \"ability\", \"grindstone habits\", and \"compassion\"). The data showed significant differences based on race and gender. White applicants were more likely to be described using \"standout\" or \"ability\" keywords (including \"exceptional\", \"best\", and \"outstanding\") while Black applicants were more likely to be described as \"competent\". These differences remained significant after controlling for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores. Female applicants were more frequently described as \"caring\", \"compassionate\", and \"empathic\" or \"empathetic\". Women were also more frequently described as \"bright\" and \"organized\". While the MSPE is intended to reflect an objective, summative assessment of students' qualifications, these data demonstrate for the first time systematic differences in how candidates are described based on racial/ethnic and gender group membership. Recognizing possible implicit biases and their potential impact is important for faculty who strive to create a more egalitarian medical community.

As the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spreads throughout the United States, evidence is mounting that racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of COVID-19 patients at Sutter Health, a large integrated health system in northern California, to measure potential disparities. We used Sutter's integrated electronic health record to identify adults with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, and we used multivariable logistic regression to assess risk of hospitalization, adjusting for known risk factors, such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, health, and socioeconomic variables. We analyzed 1,052 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the period January 1-April 8, 2020. Among our findings, we observed that compared with non-Hispanic white patients, nonHispanic African American patients had 2.7 times the odds of hospitalization, after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and income. We explore possible explanations for this, including societal factors that either result in barriers to timely access to care or create circumstances in which patients view delaying care as the most sensible option. Our study provides real-world evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in the presentation of COVID-19.

Fewer women than men pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), despite girls outperforming boys at school in the relevant subjects. According to the ‘variability hypothesis’, this over-representation of males is driven by gender differences in variance; greater male variability leads to greater numbers of men who exceed the performance threshold. Here, we use recent meta-analytic advances to compare gender differences in academic grades from over 1.6 million students. In line with previous studies we find strong evidence for lower variation among girls than boys, and of higher average grades for girls. However, the gender differences in both mean and variance of grades are smaller in STEM than non-STEM subjects, suggesting that greater variability is insufficient to explain male over-representation in STEM. Simulations of these differences suggest the top 10% of a class contains equal numbers of girls and boys in STEM, but more girls in non-STEM subjects. Men are over-represented in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) workforce even though girls outperform boys in these subjects at school. Here, the authors cast doubt on one leading explanation for this paradox, the ‘variability hypothesis’.

Due to methodological heterogeneity, the exact prevalence of military sexual trauma (MST) is unknown. To elucidate our understanding of the pervasiveness of this important social issue, a meta-analysis was conducted. A computerized database search in PsycINFO, PubMed, and PILOTS revealed 584 unique citations for review. Of these identified studies, 69 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The results revealed that 15.7% of military personnel and veterans report MST (3.9% of men, 38.4% of women) when the measure includes both harassment and assault. Additionally, 13.9% report MST (1.9% of men, 23.6% of women) when the measure assesses only assault and 31.2% report MST (8.9% of men, 52.5% of women) when the measure assesses only harassment. Regardless of the type of victimization incident (i.e., harassment or assault), women evidenced significantly larger prevalence rates compared to men. Self-report measure and interviews were associated with higher prevalence rates than the review of veterans affair (VA) medical records when measuring both harassment and assault and only harassment. No significant differences were observed among prevalence rates based on VA, non-VA, or both VA and non-VA recruitment. Ultimately, the findings suggest that MST is a pervasive problem, among both men and women in the military, highlighting the importance of this line of research.

Traumatic events are common globally; however, comprehensive population-based cross-national data on the epidemiology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the paradigmatic trauma-related mental disorder, are lacking. Data were analyzed from 26 population surveys in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. A total of 71 083 respondents ages 18+ participated. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview assessed exposure to traumatic events as well as 30-day, 12-month, and lifetime PTSD. Respondents were also assessed for treatment in the 12 months preceding the survey. Age of onset distributions were examined by country income level. Associations of PTSD were examined with country income, world region, and respondent demographics. The cross-national lifetime prevalence of PTSD was 3.9% in the total sample and 5.6% among the trauma exposed. Half of respondents with PTSD reported persistent symptoms. Treatment seeking in high-income countries (53.5%) was roughly double that in low-lower middle income (22.8%) and upper-middle income (28.7%) countries. Social disadvantage, including younger age, female sex, being unmarried, being less educated, having lower household income, and being unemployed, was associated with increased risk of lifetime PTSD among the trauma exposed. PTSD is prevalent cross-nationally, with half of all global cases being persistent. Only half of those with severe PTSD report receiving any treatment and only a minority receive specialty mental health care. Striking disparities in PTSD treatment exist by country income level. Increasing access to effective treatment, especially in low- and middle-income countries, remains critical for reducing the population burden of PTSD.

AbstractObjectivesWomen remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.DesignRetrospective observational study.Data sourcesTitles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017.Main outcome measuresAnalysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field.ResultsArticles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples.ConclusionsClinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.