metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Gender gap in Cirugía Española publications
Información de la revista
Vol. 101. Núm. 6.
Páginas 453-456 (junio 2023)
Visitas
132
Vol. 101. Núm. 6.
Páginas 453-456 (junio 2023)
Scientific letter
Acceso a texto completo
Gender gap in Cirugía Española publications
Brecha de género en las publicaciones de Cirugía Española
Visitas
132
Silvia Carbonell Morotea,
Autor para correspondencia
sayasilv@hotmail.com

Corresponding author.
, Celia Villodrea, Ana Baeza Carriónb, Nayi Xiomara Duque Álvareza, José Manuel Ramiaa,c
a Servicio de Cirugia General y del Aparato Digestivo, Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain
b Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Marina Baixa, Villajoyosa, Alicante, Spain
c Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Texto completo

The term gender gap (GG), coined by E. Smeal in 1980, is an empirical and analytical construct which refer to the difference between categories of a variable in relation to male and female rates.1 Scientific publications (SP) are a measure of success in academic medicine.2 In the last decade a few articles have been published on the GG in SP.3,4 Our aim is to determine whether GG exists in the SPs of Cirugía Española, the only Spanish general surgery journal indexed in Pubmed.

Methods

We conducted a literature review in Cirugía Española, including all SPs from the years 2000, 2010 and 2020. The following data were collected: gender, first and last author, type of article (special article, scientific letter, editorial, image of the month/video, innovation in surgical technique, original and systematic review); area of training (AT) (bariatric, carcinomatosis, major outpatient surgery, colorectal, endocrine, oesophagogastric, management/quality, hepatobiliopancreatic, infections, breast, oncology, wall, thoracic surgery, transplant, trauma/urgencies, vascular surgery, and others); multicentre article (yes/no); hospital level (1/2/3), existence of residency programme and seniority (<10 years, >10 years), autonomous community and province. The SPs were reviewed online at the Spanish Surgery website (https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-cirugia-espanola). The AEC was asked for the gender distribution of its associates. A 50% male/female distribution was considered fair. An association analysis was performed on frequencies and prevalences observed with the expected frequencies using the non-parametric Chi-square X2 test for nominal or qualitative variables. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v.25®.

Results

The rate of female AEC members has progressively increased from 18.3% in 2000 to 42.7% in 2020. The literature review included a total of 673 CPs. Of these, 291 (43.2%) correspond to 2000, 217 (32.2%) to 2010, and 165 (24.5%) to 2020. In 2000, 10% of the first authors were female, 29.5% in 2010 and 44.2% in 2020. The female gender of the last author was 10.7%, 13.8% and 15.2%, respectively (Fig. 1A and B).

Fig. 1.

(A,B) First author and gender distribution; last author year and gender distribution. (C,D) Type of article, first author and gender distribution; 2b type of article, last author and gender distribution.

(0.37MB).

Regarding the relationship between article type and first author, we observed that the subtypes closest to equity were image/video of the month (40.7%) and scientific letter (37.3%). As last author, the highest percentage of female gender was in image/video of the month (18.5%) and the lowest was in special article (0%) and editorials (4.5%) (Fig. 1C and D). The results by CA showed that the only section with an increasing trend in terms of female first authorship was Colorectal with 12% in 2000, 30% in 2010 and 42.9% in 2020. It is noteworthy that there is no female representation either as first or last author in the management/quality area. Only infections in 2010 (60%); trauma/urgencies 2010 (54.4%); oncology 2020 (75%) and vascular 2020 (58.3%) managed to overcome the equality barrier.

We performed an analysis of the first author/last author binomial classifying it as Female/Female (F/F), Female/Male (F/M), Male/Female (M/F) and Male/Male (M/M). We obtained 3.3% of F/F, 21.4% of F/M, 9.5% of M/F and 65.8% of M/M. The modality that increased the most during the period studied was F/F representation (Table 1).

Table 1.

Distribution of frequencies by gender and first/last author.

  First female author n ( %)  First male author n (%)  p value  Last female author n (%)  Last male author n (%)  Total n  p value 
Total bibliographic review  166 (24.7)  507 (75.3)    86 (12.8)  587 (87.2)  673  .329 
Year      <0.001         
Year 2000  29 (10)  262 (90)    31 (10.7)  260 (89.3)  291   
Year 2010  64 (29.5)  153 (70.5)    30 (13.8)  187 (86.2)  217   
Year 2020  73 (44.2)  92 (55.8)    25 (15.2)  140 (84.8)  165   
Type of article      <.001        .258 
Special article  4 (14.3)  24 (85.7)    0(0)  28 (100)  28   
Letter to the editor  18 (17.5)  85 (82.5)    14 (13.6)  89 (86.4)  103   
Scientific letter  66 (37.3)  111 (62.7)    29 (16.4)  148 (83.6)  177   
Editorial  5 (22.7)  17 (77.3)    1 (4.5)  21 (95.5)  22   
Image/video of the month  22 (40.7)  32 (59.3)    10 (18.5)  44 (81.5)  54   
Surgical technique innovation  2 (9.1)  20 (90.9)    2 (9.1)  20 (90.9)  22   
Original  46 (20.4)  180 (79.6)    26 (11.5)  200 (88.5)  226   
Systematic Review  3 (15)  17 (85)    2 (10)  18 (90)  20   
Training area      .072        .507 
Bariatrics  2 (18.2)  9 (81.8)    0(0)  11 (100)  11   
Carcinomatosis  1 (100)  0(0)    0(0)  1 (100)   
CMA  0(0)  3 (100)    0(0)  3 (100)   
Colorectal  24 (23.8)  77 (76.2)    15 (14.9)  86 (85.1)  101   
Endocrinology  9 (27.2)  25 (72.7)    4 (12.5)  30 (87.5)  34   
Esophagogastric  10 (23.3)  33 (76.7)    4 (9.3)  39 (90.7)  43   
Management/quality  0(0)  14 (100)    2 (14.3)  12 (85.7)  14   
HBP  25 (27.2)  67 (72.8)    9 (9.8)  83 (90.2)  92   
Infections  13 (40.6)  19 (59.3)    6 (19.4)  26 (80.6)  32   
Breast  6 (23.1)  21 (76.9)    2 (7.7)  25 (92.3)  27   
Oncology  6 (33.3)  12 (66.7)    3 (16.7)  15 (83.3)  18   
Wall  11 (23.4)  36 (76.6)    10 (21.3)  37 (78.7)  47   
Chest  5 (27.8)  13 (72.2)    4 (22.2)  14 (77.8)  18   
Transplant  2 (16.7)  10 (83.3)    1 (8.3)  11 (91.7)  12   
Trauma emergencies  22 (34.4)  42 (65.6)    7 (10.9)  57 (89.1)  64   
Vascular  11 (36.7)  19 (63.3)    5 (16.7)  25 (83.3)  30   
Others  19 (15.2)  106 (84.4)    13 (10.4)  112 (89.6)  125   
Type of Hospital      .007        .722 
Level 1  0(0)  100(3)    0(0)  100(3)   
Level 2  17.6(18)  82.4(84)    13.7(14)  86.3(88)  102   
Level 3  23.3(146)  72.7(388)    12.4(66)  87.6(468)  534   
Residency programme      .001        .05 
Yes <10 Years  0(0)  6 (100)    3 (50)  3 (50)   
Yes >10 Years  153 (28)  394 (72)    68 (12.4)  479 (87.6)  547   
No  11 (13.6)  70 (86.4)    12 (14.8)  69 (85.2)  81   
Multicentre      .912        .089 
Yes  5 (20.8)  19 (79.2)    1 (4.2)  23 (95.8)  24   
No  122 (25.1)  365 (74.9)    60 (12.3)  427 (87.7)  487   
Nc  36 (24.7)  110 (75.3)    25 (17.1)  121 (82.9)  146   

MOS, major outpatient surgery; HBP, hepatobiliopancreatic.

Discussion

Our analysis shows first and last authored GG in SPs, although there is a progressive increase in the number of SPs as first author. Other articles on GG have shown the same tendencia.5 This increase is minimal as last author, a position often reserved for the head of service. This could be due to the phenomenon known as the "glass ceiling" or the limitation of women's promotion to managerial positions.6

The analysis by type of article showed inequality in all subtypes but especially in editorials, innovation in surgical technique, special article and systematic reviews. The most recent types (picture/video of the month and scientific letter) were the closest to equality. This has also been observed in GG studies from other specialties with lower numbers of original studies and editorials by women.2

Studies on BG have shown that when the first author is a man, it is more likely that the last author is also a man.3 We found 65.8% M/M authors vs. 3.3% F/F authors. The combination that grew the most was F/F from 0.3% in 2000 to 7.3% in 2020.

There are multiple theories about GG. The most recognised is the so-called "leaky pipeline" which describes how women start an educational and professional career, and then drop out for a variety of social and professional reasons.7 Possible solutions to reduce GG are: elimination of informal networks in selective processes, with formal, structured and transparent recruitment; increase of women researchers as it could cause the "gender pull phenomenon" or inclusive mentoring.8–10

Our study has limitations: exclusive review of Cirugía Española and not of the entire scientific production, and the absence of reliable data on the distribution by gender and CA of Spanish surgeons. But we believe that its strength is that it is the first Spanish study on GG in SP.

In conclusion, we have observed GG in Spanish Surgical SP in terms of first and last authorship. It would be desirable to develop AEC-sponsored policies to reduce GG.

References
[1]
Unidad de Igualdad de Género | Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer | Consejería para la Igualdad y el Bienestar Social. Accessed November 4, 2021. https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodelamujer/ugen/modulos/Indicadores/bgenero.html.
[2]
N. Duma.
Gender differences in publication rates in oncology: looking at the past, present, and future.
Cancer., 126 (2020), pp. 2759-2761
[3]
N.H. Dalal, F. Chino, H. Williamson, G.M. Beasley, A.K.S. Salama, M. Palta.
Mind the gap: gendered publication trends in oncology.
Cancer., 126 (2020), pp. 2859-2865
[4]
C. Mueller, R. Wright, S. Girod.
The publication gender gap in US academic surgery.
[5]
S. Tushingham, T. Fulkerson, K. Hill.
The peer review gap: a longitudinal case study of gendered publishing and occupational patterns in a female-rich discipline, Western North America (1974–2016).
PLoS One., 12 (2017), pp. 1-24
[6]
A. Fridner, A. Norell, G. Åkesson, M.G. Sendén, L.T. Løvseth, K. Schenck-Gustafsson.
Possible reasons why female physicians publish fewer scientific articles than male physicians – a cross-sectional study.
[7]
D.E. Stewart, F. Ahmad, A.M. Cheung, B. Bergman, D.L. Dell.
Women physicians and stress.
J Womens Health Gend Based Med., 9 (2000), pp. 185-190
[8]
D. Sambunjak, S.E. Straus, A. Marusic.
A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine.
J Gen Intern Med., 25 (2010), pp. 72-78
[9]
D. Sambunjak, S.E. Straus, A. Marušić.
Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review.
JAMA., 296 (2006), pp. 1103-1115
[10]
E.K. Choo, J. van Dis, D. Kass.
Time’s up for medicine? Only time will tell.
N Engl J Med., 379 (2018), pp. 1592-1593

Please cite this article as: Carbonell Morote S, Villodre C, Baeza Carrión A, Duque Álvarez NX, Manuel Ramia J. Brecha de género en las publicaciones de Cirugía Española. Cir Esp. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2022.05.011

Copyright © 2022. AEC
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.cireng.2022.06.047
No mostrar más