Orthopaedic Travelling Fellowship Programs: A Survey of Canadian Applicants and Participants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Despite the well-documented benefits of travelling fellowships, there is a lack of female applicants to travelling fellowship programs. There is also a limited amount of research that has been conducted regarding travelling fellowships. Therefore, the aims of this study were fourfold: (1) to determine the number and gender of successful applicants for fellowship programs, (2) to determine any perceived barriers for both men and women to participating in travelling fellowship programs, (3) to explore possible support systems to address these barriers, and (4) to explore any differences among genders regarding perceived barriers to participating in travelling fellowship programs. Methods: A 41-item cross-sectional survey was distributed to all Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) members who applied for a COA travelling fellowship program between 2004 and 2019. There were 78 applicants of which 26 were women (33%). Up to 3 reminder emails were sent every two weeks after the initial invitations to encourage participation. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: A total of 103 fellowship applications were submitted, 26% from female applicants. Thirty-one (39%) of the applications submitted by men were successful and 10 (33%) of the applications submitted by women were successful. Nineteen individuals completed the survey with a gender distribution equal to the non-responders. The most common perceived barriers were time constraints (65%) and family obligations (47%), with 24% of respondents identifying no perceived barriers at all. No respondent identified concerns for sexual or gender-based harassment. Eightyfive percent of individuals responded that the perceived barriers were not related to their gender. Most respondents (87%) suggested a mentorship program to increase the number of female applicants to COA travelling fellowship programs. Conclusions: Women are less likely to apply for orthopaedic travelling fellowships in Canada; however, the success rate of applications submitted by women is similar to that of applications submitted by men. When applying to COA travelling fellowship programs, the majority of applicants identified barriers including time constraints and family obligations. In general, these barriers were not perceived to be related to their gender. The findings of this study may encourage more women to apply to COA travelling fellowship programs.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,088 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».