Impact of Mentoring on Academic Career Success for Women in Medicine: A Systematic Review

Shen, Mary R.; Tzioumis, Emma; Andersen, Elizabeth; Wouk, Kathryn; McCall, Rebecca; Li, Winston; Girdler, Susan S.; Malloy, Erin

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004563

Cited by 62 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 131 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the reviewed studies, women believed that gender bias, especially in the workplace, hindered both recruitment and advancement for women. A recent systematic review shows how gender disparities in mentoring negatively affect women’s career promotion and satisfaction (Shen et al, 2022). This result also aligns with the findings of Loscocco and Bird (2012) which suggested that gendered structural constraints in both the labor market and the home influence career decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Borna¹,

Afrasiabi²,

Sadati

et al. 2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite scholarly debate on the topic of success, how women define career success remains unclear. For many decades, research on the concept of success has largely used quantitative methods to assess the external aspects of success in a male-dominated culture. Using a total of 18 articles from 1999 to 2020, this qualitative meta-synthesis aims to gain detailed insights into women’s definitions of career success and to capture their perspectives on the barriers they face. A systematic search was conducted across four databases: Sociological Abstracts, SocINDEX, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. This study is novel in that it is the first synthesized research that qualitatively studies the concept of career success. From this review, three distinct themes regarding women’s definition of career success emerged: (1) having support, (2) having accomplishments, and (3) feeling belonging. This article also establishes three themes regarding the obstacles to women’s career path toward success: (1) work–family/work–life imbalance, (2) gender bias/gender discrimination, and (3) the lack of mentors and role models. In contrast to previous research, the findings of this qualitative meta-synthesis indicate that while women define career success individually, they acknowledge that the professional objective aspects of success are important or even central to them in their life. The limitations of the study are noted, and the implications and future research directions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Borna¹,

Afrasiabi²,

Sadati

et al. 2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large survey of both male and female members of the European Society of Medical Oncology published in 2018 revealed that it is not simply a matter of proportion, but rather opportunities that encourages female leadership, such as leadership training and mentoring, facilitating work life balance and provision of a flexible working environment ( 43 ). Many systematic reviews reported that strategies such as mentoring programs, education and professional development create positive outcomes in improving women's skills, however there is a dearth of appropriate mentors ( 44 – 46 ). Furthermore, it can only be fundamental institutional, cultural reform and perhaps even quotas, rather than individual training, that will bring about gender equality ( 16 , 47 – 49 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group

Luong

Aedo-Lopez

et al. 2022

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGender equity in medicine has become a significant topic of discussion due to consistently low female representation in academia and leadership roles. Gender imbalance directly affects patient care. This study examined the gender and craft group of the Principal Investigators (PI) of clinical trials run by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG)MethodsPublicly available data was obtained from the AGITG website. Trials were divided into upper, lower gastrointestinal cancer, miscellaneous (neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal stromal tumours). Where multiple PIs were listed, all were counted. Craft group was assigned as surgical, medical, radiation oncology or other.ResultsThere were 69 trials with 89 PI, where 52 trials were represented exclusively by male PIs. Of all PIs, 18 were women (20.2%); all were medical oncologists. Prior to 2005, all PIs were male. The craft group distribution of PIs was: 79% medical oncologists, 12% surgical oncologists, 8% radiation oncologist, 1% nuclear medicine physicians. Regarding trials with multiple PI's, there were 19 in total. Of these, 11 had only male PIs, which included 5 surgeons. Females were more likely to be a co-PI (42%) as opposed to sole PI (18%). There was no gender policy publicly available on the AGITG website.ConclusionsThere is a low percentage of female PIs in academic oncology trials in the portfolio of this large international trials group. No trial was led by a female surgical or radiation oncologist. There is a need to understand the reasons driving the disparity so that specific strategies can be put in place.

show abstract

“…7 Lack of role models and recognition, family responsibilities, and inherent biases all have an impact on women's academic development. 8 The higher the academic status, the lower the number of women, which is called "glass ceiling". 9 Additionally, previous studies have showed that women tend to have lower rates of publication, especially in senior author positions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2018, only 18% of department chairs were women, which was the same rate as female deans 7 . Lack of role models and recognition, family responsibilities, and inherent biases all have an impact on women's academic development 8 . The higher the academic status, the lower the number of women, which is called “glass ceiling” 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of women as editors in andrology journals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surveys of gender diversity in editorial boards of journals have been conducted in several disciplines, but not in andrology. Objectives The present study was designed to investigate the gender distribution of editorial boards of andrology journals. Methods A total of eight andrology journals were included in the study, and the gender information and geographical location of editors were identified based on the information obtained from the Internet. Results A total of 382 editors’ gender information was confirmed. Women made up 1 of the 9 editors‐in‐chief (11.1%), 13 of the 68 deputy/associate editors (19.1%), 37 of the 270 editorial/advisory board members (13.7%) and 0 of the 35 other types of editors (0%). There was no significant difference in the journal impact factor between male and female editors‐in‐chief (3.060 ± 1.274 vs 3.842), and no significant association was found between impact factor and the proportion of female editor (Spearman's r = −0.204, P = 0.629). Discussion and conclusion Andrology‐related journals lacked adequate gender diversity, not all journals reserved reasonable editorial positions for women. Besides, increased impact factor did not bring additional gender bias. Women should be given more reasonable seats to improve gender diversity in andrology‐related journals.

show abstract

Impact of Mentoring on Academic Career Success for Women in Medicine: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Cited by 62 publications

References 131 publications

Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group

Representation of women as editors in andrology journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About