Search

Abstract Background The long-standing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine is well-known, but poorly documented globally. There is some evidence of the gender gap in academia, medical society leadership, or specific problems in some specialties. However, there are no investigations analyzing all medical specialties together and reporting the glass ceiling from a 360º perspective that includes positions in academia, research, professional organizations, and clinical activity. Additionally, the majority of studies have a US perspective, and we wonder if the perspective of a European country might be different. The WOmen in MEDicine in Spain (WOMEDS) project ( https://womeds.es ) aims to describe and characterize, in a systematic and detailed way, the gender bias in the medical profession in Spain in order to monitor its evolution over time and contribute to prioritizing gender policies. Methods We retrieved data for the calendar years 2019–2021 from several sources and selected surveys. We built four groups of indicators to describe leadership positions in the medical profession: (i) leadership in healthcare according to specialty and region; (ii) leadership in scientific and professional bodies; (iii) academic career; and (iv) leadership in clinical research activity. As a summary measure, we reported the women ratios, calculated as the percentage of women in specific top positions divided by the percentage of women in the relevant population. Results We found gender inequity in leadership positions in all four settings. During the observed period, only 27.6% of the heads of departments in hospitals were women compared to 61.1% of women in medical staff. Ten of the 46 medical societies grouped in the Spanish Federation of Medical Societies (FACME) (21.7%) had a women president at some point during the study period, and only 4 annual congresses had ratios of women speakers higher than 1. Women were over-represented in the lower positions and underrepresented in the top academic ones. Only 26% and 27%, respectively, of the heads of departments and deans were women. The applications for public funding for research projects are led by women only in 45% of the cases, and the budget granted to women in public calls was 24.3% lower than that of men. Conclusion In all the areas analyzed, the leadership positions are still mostly occupied by men despite the feminization of medicine in Spain. The severe gender inequity found calls for urgent interventions within a defined time horizon. Such measures must concern all levels, from national or regional regulation to changes in organizational culture or incentives in specific organizations.

A limited number of longitudinal studies have examined the symptoms associated with long-COVID-19. We conducted an assessment of symptom onset, severity and patient recovery, and determined the percentage of patients who experienced reinfection up to 2 years after the initial onset of the disease. Our cohort comprises 377 patients (≥18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a secondary hospital (Madrid, Spain), throughout March 3–16, 2020. Disease outcomes and clinical data were followed-up until August 12, 2022. We reviewed the evolution of the 253 patients who had survived as of April 2020 (67.1%). Nine died between April 2020 and August 2022. A multivariate regression analysis performed to detect the risk factors associated with long-COVID-19 revealed that the increased likelihood was associated with chronic obstructive lung disease (OR 14.35, 95% CI 1.89–109.09; p = 0.010), dyspnea (5.02, 1.02–24.75; p = 0.048), higher LDH (3.23, 1.34–7.52; p = 0.006), and lower D-dimer levels (0.164, 0.04–0.678; p = 0.012). Reinfected patients (n = 45) (47.8 years; 39.7–67.2) were younger than non-reinfected patients (64.1 years; 48.6–74.4)) (p < 0.001). Patients who received a combination of vaccines exhibited fewer symptoms (44.4%) compared to those who received a single type of vaccine (77.8%) (p = 0.048). Long-COVID-19 was detected in 27.05% (66/244) of patients. The early detection of risk factors helps predict the clinical course of patients with COVID-19. Middle-aged adults could be susceptible to reinfection, highlighting the importance of prevention and control measures regardless of vaccination status.

This study evaluates the degree of empathy among medical students and its influencing factors at three critical moments of their degree studies (beginning of first year and end of third and sixth years) as well as establishes low-, medium-, and high-empathy cut-off points to obtain valid and reliable results that can be extrapolated to the general population. This cross-sectional study of the eight (public and private) medical schools in the province of Madrid, used an electronic questionnaire with the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Medical Student Well-Being Index, and other independent characteristics as measuring instruments. Of the 2,264 student participants, 1,679 (74.0%) were women, with a 50.7% participation rate. No significant differences were found in empathy levels by academic year. Regarding range, percentile and cut-off point tables were established to identify students with high, medium, and low empathy levels. Women (p