Sexual Harassment in Academic Anesthesiology: A Survey of Prevalence, Sources, Impact, and Recommendations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A report by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) showed that academic anesthesiology has the highest prevalence of sexual harassment among specialties for both men and women. We aimed to explore the prevalence, sources, and impact of sexual harassment on anesthesiologists in academic centers in the United States and Canada. We also sought recommendations for its mitigation. METHODS: An anonymous online survey instrument was designed based on a previously published report, yielding 39 questions, including demographics and 4 open-ended questions. The survey was sent via email to Association of University Anesthesiologists (AUA) members, who were encouraged to share across academic anesthesiology departments in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: A total of 626 responses were received; after exclusion of incomplete and nonfaculty responses, 484 complete survey responses were analyzed. 52.9% of respondents identified as men and 45.9% as women; 3 respondents (0.6%) identified as nonbinary, and 3 respondents (0.6%) preferred not to answer. 43.6% of respondents perceived there is sexual harassment in academic anesthesiology. Significantly more women than men reported presence of sexual harassment in academic medicine (65.3% vs 38.3%, P < .001), in academic anesthesiology (59.5% vs 30.1%, P < .001), and in their place of work (37.8% vs 18.3%, P < .001). 14.5% of men and 43.2% of women had experienced sexual harassment at least once in the past 12 months ( P < .001). 43.7% of women reported ever experiencing unwanted physical contact in the workplace compared to 16.8% of men; 74.3% of women reported ever experiencing verbal or nonverbal conduct in the workplace related to gender that caused embarrassment, distress, or offense compared to 24.6% of men ( P < .001). 8.2% of men reported feeling their clinical ability doubted, compared to 87.8% of women ( P < .001). Experiences of sexual harassment were most consistent with verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, or exclusion of members of one gender. Colleagues from anesthesiology were most likely to be reported as the source of sexual harassment (44.6% of unwanted physical contact, 59% of verbal or nonverbal conduct). The impact was described along 4 themes: emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and professional. Participants made recommendations for eliminating sexual harassment by raising awareness, providing education, establishing reporting, offering support, and ensuring accountability. CONCLUSIONS: This survey confirms the high prevalence of sexual harassment in academic anesthesiology. The most common sources are anesthesiology colleagues. The recommendations for leaders and institutions include creating a professional environment free from harassment with support for targets and accountability for instigators.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».