PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool: exposing gender bias and gender inequities in health research Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2017)
    Morgan, T.
    ;
    Williams, L.A.
    ;
    Gott, M.
    Quality appraisal tools used in systematic reviews to evaluate health literature do not adequately address issues related to gender. This oversight is significant because disparities between genders have been identified as a major health equity concern, and systematic reviews are regarded as a powerful means for informing policy that could redress gender inequities. In this paper, we present our Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool that offers researchers a template to undertake a comprehensive gendered analysis of studies they review. Informed by a feminist perspective, the tool addresses issues of power, gender and inequity, thereby giving researchers the means to interrogate the scientific rigour of systematic reviews that focus on gender. Specifically, our tool outlines ways gender can be critically examined in terms of study design, data collection, analysis, discussion and recommendations. We argue that this tool has the potential to improve the provision of public health by providing solid understandings and critical reflections on the reasons why women continue to face barriers in their access to optimal health care. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Geographical and gender inequalities in health sciences studies: testing differences in research productivity, impact and visibility Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Goyanes, M.
    ;
    Demeter, M.
    ;
    Háló, G.
    ;
    Arcila-Calderón, C.
    ;
    Gil de Zúñiga, H.
    Purpose: Gender and geographical imbalance in production and impact levels is a pressing issue in global knowledge production. Within Health Sciences, while some studies found stark gender and geographical biases and inequalities, others found little empirical evidence of this marginalization. The purpose of the study is to clear the ambiguity concerning the topic. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Health Sciences research data downloaded from the Scival (Scopus/Scimago) database from 2017 to 2020 (n = 7,990), this study first compares gender representation in research productivity, as well as differences in terms of citation per document, citations per document view and view per document scores according to geographical location. Additionally, the study clarifies whether there is a geographic bias in productivity and impact measures (i.e. citation per document, citations per document view and view per document) moderated by gender. Findings: Results indicate that gender inequalities in productivity are systematic at the overall disciplinary, as well as the subfield levels. Findings also suggest statistically significant geographical differences in citation per document, citations per document view, and view per document scores, and interaction effect of gender over the relation between geography and (1) the number of citations per view and (2) the number of views per document. Originality/value: This study contributes to scientometric studies in health sciences by providing insightful findings about the geographical and gender bias in productivity and impact across world regions. © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequalities in authorship of the main Spanish medical journals in 2017 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Tornero Patricio, S.
    ;
    Alonso Rueda, I.O.
    ;
    García Gozalbes, J.
    ;
    Domínguez Domínguez, J.A.
    ;
    Charris-Castro, L.
    Introduction: Some studies have shown a lower female participation in scientific publications. The objective of this study is to analyse the gender inequalities in the main Spanish journals of medical publications. Material and method: Cross-sectional study of the main Spanish medical journals classified by SCImago Journal & Country Ranking (n = 24) and their publications (n = 3.375), during the year 2017. Women/men ratio in authorship was calculated for all journals and types of papers. Bivariate analyses were developed with the type of article as the dependent variable, and gender, institution, and country of the first and last authors as the independent variables. Logistic regression models were performed to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the types of papers according to authorship gender, institution, and country. The statistical program used was R. Results: The total number of authors was 16,252 (44.2% women, 53.9% men, and 1.9% non-identified gender). Women represented 46% of the first authors and 33.5% of the last ones. Women were the first authors of Editorials less often than men (aOR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.51), but more often in Originals (aOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.33-1.80). Women were the last authors with less frequency in all types of papers, especially in Editorials (aOR 0.50; 95% CI 0.35-0.70). The women/men ratio in authorship was less than 0.80 in 10 of 26 journals analysed (41.7%). Conclusions: These results show the gender inequalities in the authorship of the main Spanish medical journals in 2017, especially as first authors and Editorials. © 2020
  • Item type:Publication,
    Use of a Coordinated Social Media Strategy to Improve Dissemination of Research and Collect Solutions Related to Workforce Gender Equity. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Cawcutt, Kelly A.
    ;
    Erdahl, Lillian M.
    ;
    Englander, Meridith J.
    ;
    Radford, Diane M.
    ;
    Oxentenko, Amy S.
    Background: To increase awareness, search for solutions, and drive change, disparity-related research needs to be strategically disseminated. This study aimed to quantify whether a social media strategy could: (1) amplify dissemination of gender equity-related articles and (2) collect proposed solutions to gender equity issues. Methods: In April 2018, eight published journal articles covering separate gender equity issues were presented in a 1-hour Twitter chat hosted by Physician's Weekly. Metrics data were collected before, during, and after the chat. During the chat, one question related to each article was tweeted at a time. Qualitative data were extracted from responses and evaluated for thematic content. Results: In the 16-hour period during and following the chat, we tallied 1500 tweets from 294 participants and 8.6 million impressions (potential views). The Altmetric Attention Score of each article increased (average, 126.5 points; range, 91-208 points). Within the respective journal, the Altmetric Rank of seven articles improved (range, 3 to ≥19), while the eighth maintained its #1 rank. The one article for which share and download data were available experienced a 729% increase in shares following prechat posts and another 113% bump after the chat, a 1667% increase overall (n = 45-795). Similarly, downloads, and presumably reads, increased 712% following prechat posts and another 47% bump after the chat, a 1093% increase overall (n = 394-4700). We tallied 181 potential solutions to the eight gender equity-related questions. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that social media can be used strategically to increase the dissemination of research articles and collect solution-focused feedback.