MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214711444 · doi:10.1111/bju.15294

World News

2020· article· fr· W4214711444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Eardley

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyHarassmentAttractivenessUrologyFamily medicineGerontologyNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© istock.com/Dutko Stephens EH, Heisler CA, Temkin SM, Miller P. The current status of women in Surgery. How to affect the future. JAMA Surgery 2020; 155: 876–85 Chyu J, Peters CE, Nicholson TM, Dai JC et al. Women in Leadership in Urology: The Case for Increasing Diversity and Equity. Urology 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.079 The issue is complex, but the basic facts are that in 2019, 10.3% of UK urological consultants were women while in the 2019 AUA census 9.9% of practising American urologists were female. These figures, which reflect a gradual, but slow growth of women within the specialty, are representative of most western healthcare systems. In younger cohorts, women have greater representation with 37% of UK trainees being female, while 22% of American urologists under the age of 45 years were women. Broadly speaking the main barriers to women in urology include implicit (unconscious) bias, issues around discrimination and harassment, matters of recruitment and training, difficulties in integrating professional and personal lives and very fundamental issues around the attractiveness of a surgical career. Although women comprise more than 50% of medical students in most western countries, attracting women into surgical specialties such as urology remains challenging. As the figures above show this is changing but challenges remain. A recent systematic review (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931720420303500?via%3Dihub) showed that issues such as gender discrimination, perceptions of the surgical lifestyle and societal and cultural barriers tend to deter women from entering surgery. Female medical students can be positively influenced to enter surgery as a career if they receive appropriate mentorship, intellectual challenge and if they have practical experience of the specialty. “Although women comprise more than 50% of medical students in most western countries, attracting women into surgical specialties such as urology remains challenging” When they enter training there are often difficulties with flexibility, although in many countries such as the UK, there are active programmes in place to try to mitigate these problems. Despite this, there can be limited access to support for pregnancy and parenting, lack of flexibility in training programmes, concerns about work life balance, lack of female role models, lack of mentoring and a culture, particularly in surgery, that is not always conducive or attractive to women. Even when women are attracted into the specialty they have a high attrition rate with more women than men leaving training programs for similar reasons to those outlined above. It sadly remains true that in numerous surveys, women report frequent episodes of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. In the context of a traditionally male-dominated specialty with a hierarchical career structure (often) with an uninformed leadership, it remains the case that all too commonly the perpetrator is a supervising surgeon. The #MeToo movement has made women more willing to speak up about these issues and there have been a number of high-profile reports on them within the medical profession (https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1569/bma-daphne-romney-qc-report-oct-19.pdf). “The gender pay gap is greatest in the surgical specialties, including urology” Studies of pay and remuneration consistently show that female doctors are paid less than their male counterparts. This is true in healthcare systems, such as the USA where there is no standard rate of pay for a particular post, but it also true in those systems such as the UK National Health Service where in principal the rates of pay applies to the seniority of the post rather than to the person doing it. Known as the gender-pay-gap, this has its origin in a number of factors although the relative importance of these factors will differ between healthcare systems. There is a lot evidence that the gender pay gap is greatest in the surgical specialties, including urology. A study of the issues underlying the gender pay gap in the NHS, together with proposals to resolve this issue has been undertaken by the UK government and is due to be published in the near future. The ‘Women in Leadership in Urology’ paper in the Gold Journal explored the issues underlining the relative scarcity of women in leadership positions in urology. Specific examples were described including the paucity of women in senior academic positions, leadership positions within specialist societies, editorial and editorial board positions and faculty positions during national and international congresses. A case was made that there are a number of potential advantages to having women in leadership positions. Some are economic, while the leadership styles of women typically compliment those of their male counterparts, with some evidence being presented that groups with more varied leadership styles perform better, on multiple measures of success. Finally, evidence was presented to suggest that there are benefits to patient outcomes from increased female representation within both the general workforce of a specialty and within its leadership positions. All the articles explored potential solutions to these problems, which include improved education to minimise subconscious bias and eliminate gender-based discrimination, enhanced mentorship and sponsorship during a surgical career and active intervention to support women who wish to combine the professional career with a fulfilling home life, both during their training and then into their subsequent consultant career. The Journal of Urology, which is the flagship journal of the American Urological Association, recently announced the appointment of its new editor. Dr Robert Siemens will initially undertake the role of Incoming Editor from January 2021, working alongside the current editor Dr Joseph A Smith. He will take over the role of Editor-in-Chief from January 2022. He will be the first Canadian Editor of the Journal of Urology. Dr Siemens undertook both undergraduate and postgraduate training at Queens University School of Medicine, Ontario and he also the undertook a fellowship in Oncology at The University of Iowa. He is the current Professor of Urology at Queens University with additional appointments in the departments of Oncology, Biomedical and Molecular sciences as well as at the Queens Cancer Research Institute. He has previously served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Urological Association Journal. World News is written by Ian Eardley

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7750.701

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207