Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
Persistent gender disparities in research productivity among U.S. reproductive endocrinologists: a cross-sectional analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Knopf Elisheva, Bonthu Shalakha, Meka Pranav, Eisenreich Elana, Roberts Leah, Retrouvey Michele
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess gender-based differences in career trajectories among reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) physicians in the United States, focusing on leadership, research productivity, and professional involvement.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional comparative study of demographic, professional, and research metrics stratified by gender. Practicing REI physicians were identified through the ASRM directory. Physician gender was evaluated as a variable influencing career outcomes. Main outcome measures included practice setting, geographic distribution, research productivity (h-index, publications, citations), academic leadership, journal editorial board, and society board positions. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were performed.
RESULTS: Among 767 REI physicians, 55% were male and 45% female. Slightly more females worked in academic settings (33.3% vs. 25.1%), while more males were in private practice (70.4% vs. 66.7%). Leadership representation was comparable between genders. Female physicians had marginally greater representation on editorial (7.8% vs. 7.1%) and society boards (5.8% vs. 4.3%). Males, however, had significantly higher research productivity (mean h-index: 16.44 vs. 10.94; publications: 52.53 vs. 26.72; citations: 2216.69 vs. 1155.28; all p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Despite near parity in leadership representation, gender disparities persist in research productivity among REI physicians. These discrepancies may reflect systemic inequities in academic support, promotion criteria, and institutional culture. Structural barriers such as inequitable research resources, gendered service loads, and family-building or domestic responsibilities may further constrain women's ability to engage in sustained scholarly productivity and advancement. Future efforts can prioritize inclusive data practices, equitable promotion policies, and targeted interventions to support diversity within reproductive medicine.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional comparative study of demographic, professional, and research metrics stratified by gender. Practicing REI physicians were identified through the ASRM directory. Physician gender was evaluated as a variable influencing career outcomes. Main outcome measures included practice setting, geographic distribution, research productivity (h-index, publications, citations), academic leadership, journal editorial board, and society board positions. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were performed.
RESULTS: Among 767 REI physicians, 55% were male and 45% female. Slightly more females worked in academic settings (33.3% vs. 25.1%), while more males were in private practice (70.4% vs. 66.7%). Leadership representation was comparable between genders. Female physicians had marginally greater representation on editorial (7.8% vs. 7.1%) and society boards (5.8% vs. 4.3%). Males, however, had significantly higher research productivity (mean h-index: 16.44 vs. 10.94; publications: 52.53 vs. 26.72; citations: 2216.69 vs. 1155.28; all p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Despite near parity in leadership representation, gender disparities persist in research productivity among REI physicians. These discrepancies may reflect systemic inequities in academic support, promotion criteria, and institutional culture. Structural barriers such as inequitable research resources, gendered service loads, and family-building or domestic responsibilities may further constrain women's ability to engage in sustained scholarly productivity and advancement. Future efforts can prioritize inclusive data practices, equitable promotion policies, and targeted interventions to support diversity within reproductive medicine.