Gender equity in medical publications: nurses have smashed the glass ceiling

Study characteristics and methods in a national nursing and allied health research programme: A descriptive study

AIM

To describe the characteristics, methods and publications of studies funded by a French research programme for nursing and allied health professions.

BACKGROUND

In some countries, the emerging field of nursing and allied health research is supported by funding programmes that are poorly documented.

DESIGN

Observational descriptive study.

METHODS

Data from funded studies in 2012-2020 were identified in publications, registries or an institutional repository by two authors in April-May 2022. Methods (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method), study designs using the mixed-methods appraisal tool and thematic categories were extracted.

RESULTS

In total, 212 studies were funded. The yearly number of studies has risen from 19 in 2012 to 33 in 2020. Eight nursing and allied health professions were represented among grant recipients, including 42% (89/212) of nurses. Half of the studies with identified methods were multicentric (91/185, 16% in 2012 and 71% in 2018). The median funding per study has risen from €63,471 in 2012 to €251,665 in 2020. The predominant methods were quantitative and interventional (144/185, 78%), with randomised controlled trials being the most frequent study design (125/144, 87%). Among the 38 quantitative observational studies, 14 (37%) were diagnostic studies. Three qualitative or mixed-methods studies were reported. The thematic categories included rehabilitation, nursing care, complementary medicine, patient education and metrology. Of the 50 completed studies, 18 publications were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of studies, multicentric studies and funding appeared to increase over the nine-year study period. The predominance of high-level evidence studies is encouraging, although a limited number of studies have been published.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY

This study highlights the gradual involvement in a nursing and allied health research programme and the support needed to disseminate research.

Mind the gap: Gender disparities in authorship in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

INTRODUCTION

Research studies tracking gender and academic publication productivity in healthcare find gender disparities in research activity, publication, and authorship. Article authorship is one of the important metrics to track when seeking to understand gender inequality in academic career advancement. Research on gender disparities in publication productivity in the field of Medical Radiation Science (MRS) is very limited thus this study analyses and explains potential gender differences in article authorship and acceptance for publication in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (JMIRS) for a 5-year period (2017-2021).

METHODS

Gender was inferred based on the author's first name or title (e.g., Mr, Mrs or Ms). For those who left the title blank or reported as 'Dr' or 'Prof,' a series of steps were taken to identify their gender. Where gender was impossible to ascribe, these authors were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics are reported for the study population. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used. Percentages of females are reported, and males constitute the other portion. Chi-square, slope analysis and z-tests were used to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Results show that female authorship overall and in all categories of authorship placement (i.e., first, last and corresponding) increased over the timeframe reviewed. The percentage gain in the increase was higher than that for male authorship. However, male authorship started from a higher baseline in 2017 and has also increased year on year and overall, as well as in each placement category examined. More female authors were in the MRS sub-specialism Radiation Therapy (RT) than in the other MRS sub-specialisms. Analysis of the acceptance rate of articles with female authors shows a weak downward trend, and this may be related to higher submission and acceptance rates of articles by male authors during the same period.

CONCLUSION

Male authors are overrepresented in all categories, which raises questions about the persistence of gender disparities in JMIRS authorship and article acceptance. Positive trends in female authorship indicate progress, yet there is the persistence of the significant under-representation of women in the Medical Radiation Sciences workforce in academic publishing. Recruiting more males to address the gender imbalance in the profession should not be at the expense of females' career progression.

Gender equity of authorship in pulmonary medicine over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity in authorship broadly persists in medical literature, little is known about female authorship within pulmonary medicine.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021 in 12 journals with the highest impact in pulmonary medicine was conducted. Only original research and review articles were included. Names of the first and last authors were extracted and their genders were identified using the Gender-API web. Female authorship was described by overall distribution and distribution by country/region/continent and journal. We compared the article citations by gender combinations, evaluated the trend in female authorship, and forecasted when parity for first and last authorship would be reached. We also conducted a systematic review of female authorship in clinical medicine.

RESULTS

14,875 articles were included, and the overall percentage of female first authors was higher than last authors (37.0% vs 22.2%, p<0.001). Asia had the lowest percentage of female first (27.6%) and last (15.2%) authors. The percentages of female first and last authors increased slightly over time, except for a rapid increase in the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Parity was predicted in 2046 for the first authors and 2059 for the last authors. Articles with male authors were cited more than articles with female authors. However, male-male collaborations significantly decreased, whereas female-female collaborations significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the slow improvement in female authorship over the past decade, there is still a substantial gender disparity in female first and last authorship in high-impact medical journals in pulmonary medicine.

Variations in Author Gender in Obstetrics Disease Prevalence Literature: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to evaluate gender differences in authorship of prevalence literature concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). GDM studies were matched for publication year and study country as a gender-neutral obstetric disease with similar morbidity to IPV. Relevant studies were captured without language restrictions via online searches of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022. Proportion of female authors and gender of the first and corresponding author were outcome measures. Multivariable regression models were built to examine if female authors featured more or less often in IPV during pregnancy and GDM literature adjusting by the influence of type of study, country's human development index (HDI), year of publication and journal's impact factor. 137 IPV-GDM studies pairs were included. Female authors in IPV studies were slightly lower than in GDM [59.7%, 95% CI 54.7-64.7, vs. 54.9%, 95% CI 50.7-59.1, p = 0.204]. Studies published in high-income countries were more likely to be signed by a woman as first and corresponding author (Odds Ratio 2.22, 95% CI 1.20; 4.11, p = 0.011 and Odds Ratio 2.24, CI 1.22; 4.10, p = 0.009 respectively) and proportion of women as corresponding authors decreased as the journal impact factor increased (β = 0.62, 95% CI 0.37, 1.05, p = 0.075). There is a gender gap in the field of prevalence research in IPV during pregnancy with variations according to the level of development. International programs aimed at eradicating these inequalities are needed.