ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Networking practices and gender inequities in academic medicine: Women's and men's perspectives.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessing workload, compensation, and burnout in academic dermatology: a national multi-institutional survey study.International journal of women's dermatology · 2026Article
- Leading with Impact: Transformational Leadership Among Women Surgeons - A Qualitative Study.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Gender Differences in X (Formerly Twitter) Use, Influence, and Engagement Among Cardiologists From the Top U.S. News Best Hospitals.JMIR cardio · 2025Article
- Social capital as a catalyst for gender inequality: A scoping review of networking disparities in academic medicine.Cancer · 2025Article
- Breaking Barriers: The Case for Inclusive Leadership in Medicine.Indian journal of nephrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies of gender inequities in academic medicine suggest the negative impact of men's networking practices, but little is known about how they shape faculty experiences. Methods: In this qualitative study, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 52 women and 52 men academic medicine faculty members at 16 institutions across the US in 2019. Interviews explored participants' experiences and perceptions of gender inequities in academic medicine, including perceptions of men's networking practices. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a mixture of deductively and inductively generated codes. Findings: Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts identified different dominant themes: (1) Women were often excluded from networking activities dominated by men, (2) Both women and men referred to men's networking practices in academic medicine, and believed they conferred benefits to members and excluded non-members from such benefits, (3) Participation in such networking activities yielded professional advantages, (4) Women made efforts to counteract their exclusion yet identified limits of those efforts. Interpretation: The data suggests that gender inequities in academic medicine might be associated with professional interactions that occur outside of the scope of professional work practices and in formal work sites. Additional research is needed to better understand practices such as informal networking activities and their impact in order to promote gender equity.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.