Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology.

IF 16.4
Subha Perni, Danielle Bitterman, Jennifer Ryan, Julie K Silver, Eileen Mitchell, Sarah Christensen, Megan Daniels, Mara Bloom, Ephraim Hochberg, David Ryan, Daphne Haas-Kogan, Jay S Loeffler, Nancy J Tarbell, Aparna R Parikh, Jennifer Wo
{"title":"Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology.","authors":"Subha Perni,&nbsp;Danielle Bitterman,&nbsp;Jennifer Ryan,&nbsp;Julie K Silver,&nbsp;Eileen Mitchell,&nbsp;Sarah Christensen,&nbsp;Megan Daniels,&nbsp;Mara Bloom,&nbsp;Ephraim Hochberg,&nbsp;David Ryan,&nbsp;Daphne Haas-Kogan,&nbsp;Jay S Loeffler,&nbsp;Nancy J Tarbell,&nbsp;Aparna R Parikh,&nbsp;Jennifer Wo","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2021.7008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We queried a large academic cancer center's development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1-100) than women (17; range, 3-77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2-43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3-22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0-$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0-$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":520697,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","volume":" ","pages":"1401-1406"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.7008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively.

Methods: We queried a large academic cancer center's development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity.

Results: We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1-100) than women (17; range, 3-77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2-43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3-22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0-$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0-$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount.

Conclusions: We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.

学术肿瘤学中的性别、生产力和慈善筹款。
背景:慈善捐赠是肿瘤学学术的重要资金来源,但可能容易受到对女性的隐性或显性偏见的影响。然而,性别对捐赠的影响尚未进行定量评估。方法:我们查询了一个大型学术癌症中心的发展数据库,查询了10年来医疗和放射肿瘤学家的各种基金的捐款。获得2018年4月1日之前聘用的内科肿瘤学家和放射肿瘤学家的捐赠类型和总金额(允许在查询前任职≥2年)。我们还获得了关于医生/学术级别、性别、专业、疾病部位和hirsch指数(h-index)(一种生产力度量)的公开数据。结果:我们确定了127名医生:64%的男性和36%的女性。男性的h指数中位数更高(31;范围,1-100)比女性(17;范围,3 - 77;P = .003)。男性在该机构工作的时间也更长(中位数为15年;范围,2-43岁)比女性(中位数,12.5岁;范围:3-22年;P = .025)。接受捐赠的人明显更有可能是男性(70%对30%;P = .034)。男性的中位数要高得多(259,474美元;范围:0- 29,507,784美元,女性为37,485美元;范围0 - 7483726美元;P = .019)。在多变量分析中,只有h指数和高级学术排名与捐赠收据相关,只有h指数与捐赠金额相关。结论:在未经调整的分析中,我们发现在接受慈善捐赠方面存在显著的性别差异。然而,在多变量分析中,只有生产力和排名与捐赠显著相关,这表明生产力和晋升的性别差异可能导致这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信