PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.EpidemiologyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Data-Based Approach to Evaluating Representation by Gender and Affiliation in Key Presentation Formats at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Nobles, C.J.
    ;
    Lu, Y.-L.
    ;
    Andriessen, V.C.
    ;
    Bevan, S.S.
    ;
    Radoc, J.G.
    The annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) is a major forum for sharing new research and promoting the career development of participants. Because of this, evaluating representation in key presentation formats is critical. For the 3,257 presentations identified at the 2015-2017 SER annual meetings, we evaluated presenter characteristics, including gender, affiliation, subject area, and h-index, and representation in 3 highlighted presentation formats: platform talks (n = 382), invited symposium talks (n = 273), and chairing a concurrent contributed session or symposium (n = 188). Data were abstracted from SER records, abstract booklets, and programs. Gender was assessed using GenderChecker software, and h-index was determined using the Scopus application programming interface. Log-binomial models were adjusted for participant characteristics and conference year. In adjusted models, women were less likely than men to present an invited symposium talk (relative risk = 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 0.81) compared with all participants with accepted abstracts. Researchers from US public universities, US government institutions, and international institutions were less likely to present a symposium talk or to chair a concurrent contributed session or symposium than were researchers from US private institutions. The research areas that were most represented in platform talks were epidemiologic methods, social epidemiology, and cardiovascular epidemiology. Our findings suggest differences in representation by gender, affiliation, and subject area after accounting for h-index. © 2021 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Gap in Scientific Publications on COVID-19 in Italy During the First Wave of the Pandemic: An Observational Study Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Mazzalai, Elena
    ;
    Turatto, Federica
    ;
    De Vito, Corrado
    Background: Worldwide, concerns rise on how COVID-19 pandemic impacted heavily on women, even on those belonging to the scientific community. The Italian scientific production regarding the COVID-19 throughout the first months of the health emergency could help to understand the heft of female researchers in this unique period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the gender gap in the scientific production on COVID-19 in Italy during the first months of the pandemic. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted and, for each included study, first and last author's gender, type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation, journal's Impact Factor (IF) and specialization were extracted. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. Results: 22.2% of the articles were signed by a woman as first author, 18.1% as last authors. Female authorship was less frequent than male authorship regardless of the type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation and field of specialization. Conclusion: This analysis reveal a low prevalence of studies with a female first or last author and suggests that the low share of female authors publishing on COVID-19 during the considered timespan is a transversal issue throughout the Italian medical field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sketris, I.S.
    ;
    Traynor, R.L.
    ;
    Helwig, M.
    ;
    Burland, E.
    ;
    Stewart, S.A.
    Purpose: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them. Methods: CNODES articles (published 2012–2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to “indeterminate.” T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature. Results: Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles. Conclusions: This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender equity in epidemiology: a policy brief Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Aldrich, Melinda C.
    ;
    Cust, Anne E.
    ;
    Raynes-Greenow, Camille
    ;
    International Network for Epidemiology in Policy
    The under-representation of women in leadership in scientific fields presents a serious problem. Gender diversity is integral to innovation and productivity, and inequality leads to loss of gender talent in science including epidemiology. This policy brief summarizes some of the key dimensions and determinants contributing to gender-equity gaps in epidemiology and other scientific fields, relevant to developed countries where there is more published evidence. Women in scientific fields hold fewer positions on editorial boards, lack equal representation in speaking engagements at conferences, and are less likely to publish or receive top tier grant funding. Reasons for these inequities range from unconscious bias, biased promotion systems, and traditional norms in the division of family life and labor in our society leading to the attrition of women in academia. Addressing the problem of gender inequity, as a component of gender inequality, will provide an ethical basis to advance innovation. Data on gender equity in the field of epidemiology are sparse. We call on academic institutions, professional societies and associations, and editorial boards relevant to epidemiology (as well as other academic disciplines more broadly) to take meaningful action to build an evidence base as to the extent of gender inequities in epidemiologic research, teaching, policy, and practice. We outline some of the necessary steps required to achieve gender equity, such as career development and mentoring programs, institutional support, and programs to address bias.