PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Critical CareViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Reviews

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in academic anesthesiology and critical care medicine: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-12-20)
    De Cassai, Alessandro
    ;
    Rubulotta, Francesca
    ;
    Zdravkovic, Marko
    ;
    Mustaj, Sindi
    ;
    Berger-Estilita, Joana
    Abstract Purpose Gender disparities in academia are a growing concern, impacting various disciplines, including health care. We aimed to investigate gender-based differences in academic performance, leadership roles, and academic distinction within anesthesiology and critical care medicine. Source We conducted electronic searches for relevant articles published in PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsychINFO, and ProQuest from database inception until 23 June 2024. Three researchers conducted blinded assessments using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We reported descriptive statistics for quantitative data from the included research articles. Principal findings Our initial screening identified 37,311 studies, 71 of which met the specified inclusion criteria and were therefore evaluated. Analysis of academic publishing trends revealed a gradual increase in the proportion of women as coauthors, first authors (in anesthesiology, the increase ranged from 7% to 17%, and in critical care medicine the increase was 4%), last authors, and corresponding authors. Despite these improvements, women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of top journals. Although an increase in the representation of women as abstract presenters at conferences was noted, gender disparities persist in senior authorship roles. Conclusion Gender disparities are evident in academic leadership positions within anesthesiology and critical care medicine, with few women holding editor-in-chief positions and underrepresentation of women on editorial boards. We observed similar gaps in departmental and scientific society leadership roles. The distribution of awards, prizes, and grants remains skewed, indicating persistent gender imbalances in academic distinction. While progress has been made in certain areas, substantial gaps persist in scholarly publishing, leadership, and academic distinction.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (BMJ Open, 2024)
    D, Granton
    ;
    M, Rodrigues
    ;
    V, Raparelli
    ;
    K, Honarmand
    ;
    A, Agarwal
    Abstract Objective: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020. Study selection: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome. Data abstraction and synthesis: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials. Results: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005). Conclusions: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.