Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States.

Autor: Pace NM; School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: Pace.Natalie@medstudent.pitt.edu., Maganty A; Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA., Siripong N; Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA., Lee AJ; School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA., Huang D; Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Shi, China., Bandari J; Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA., Jacobs BL; Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA., Davies BJ; Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Urology [Urology] 2020 May; Vol. 139, pp. 90-96. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 29.
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.022
Abstrakt: Objectives: To examine the distribution of industry payments to male and female academic urologists and the relationship between industry funding, academic rank, and scholarly impact.
Material and Methods: Academic urologists from 131 programs with publicly available websites were compiled. Gender, rank, fellowship training, and scholarly impact metrics were recorded. Data from the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database were paired with faculty names. Comparisons were made using Fisher's Exact, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Spearman's Rank-Order tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of receiving payments in the top quintile.
Results: Among 1,657 academic urologists, males comprised 84%. While there were no gender differences in the number of urologists listed in the Open Payments Database, males received more total funding (P < .001) and higher median general payments per capita (P < .03). Males also received higher proportions of research funding (P = .002), speaker fees (P = .03), education fees (P = .03) and higher median consulting fees (P = .003). Overall, males had higher scholarly impact (P < .001), which correlated with total industry payments (rho = 0.27, P < .001). Predictors of accepting the top quintile payments include male gender, associate professorship and H-index score ≥10.
Conclusion: Most academic urologists accepted at least one industry payment in 2016, but males received more funding than females. There is a positive correlation between total industry payments, H-index, and total publications. More research is needed to understand why gender and scholarly productivity are associated with higher payouts. This is another important area that may influence career advancement and compensation for female urologists.
(Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: