PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Primary Care

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric analysis of female authorship in original articles in the journal ATENCIÓN PRIMARIA Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Giner-Soriano, M.
    ;
    López-Pereiro, O.
    ;
    Zabaleta-del-Olmo, E.
    ;
    Pons-Vigués, M.
    ;
    Morros, R.
    Objectives: To determine the percentage of female authors in original articles published during 2 periods, in the journal of ATENCIÓN PRIMARIA (Primary Care), and to examine the differences between the categories of authorship (first, last author, and co-author) between both periods. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Feminine scientific production published during the periods 2007-2008 and 2017-2018. Participants: The study was focused on original articles. Main measurements: The following variables were collected in an ad hoc form: gender based on the name of the author, total number of women and men appearing as authors, and order of authorship. Absolute and relative authorship frequencies were calculated, and the χ2 test was used to examine the evolution of the percentages by type of authorship and gender. Results: A total of 108 articles were analysed in 2007-2008, and 100 in 2017-2018. No statistically significant differences were observed between the mean numbers of women authors within and between periods. In 2007-2008 a total of 548 female authors were identified and 540 in 2017-2018, the percentage of female authors was 48.7% and 54.4%, respectively. Only an increase in the percentage of first authors was observed between periods. Conclusions: Practically one out of every 2 authors of original articles published in the journal ATENCIÓN PRIMARIA was female. There was also a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors between the 2 periods. Nevertheless, and despite the greater number of health workers, the number of latest female authors remain unchanged, which points to the persistence of female under-representation. © 2019 The Authors
  • Item type:Publication,
    Will they always be living the Sisyphus punishment? The triple whammy for racialized women: a qualitative investigation of primary care researchers in Canada Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Aggarwal, Monica
    ;
    Wong, Sabrina T.
    Background Existing literature overlooks the role of gender and race on research productivity, particularly in the context of primary care research. This study examines how gender and race influence the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada, addressing a gap in existing literature. Methods Qualitative, descriptive methods were used, involving 60-min interviews with 23 Canadian primary care researchers. 13 participants were female (57%) and 10 participants (43%) were male. Fourteen participants were White (non-racialized; 61%), 8 were racialized (35%) and 1 did not comment on race (4%). Reflexive thematic analysis captured participant perceptions of factors influencing research productivity, including individual, professional, institutional, and systemic aspects. Findings Systemic bias and institutional culture, including racism, sexism, and unconscious biases against racialized women, emerge as key barriers to research productivity. The parenting life stage further compounds these biases. Barriers include lack of representation in faculty roles, toxic work environments, research productivity metrics, and exclusion by colleagues. Participants indicated that institutional reforms and systemic interventions are needed to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment. Strategies include recruiting equity-focused leaders, increasing representation of racialized female faculty, diversity training, mentorship programs, providing meaningful support, flexible work arrangements, and protected research time. Sponsors can offer more targeted grants for female and racialized researchers. Adjusting metrics for gender, race, parenthood, and collaborative metrics is proposed to enhance diversity and inclusion among researchers. Interpretation This study underscores the importance of addressing systemic bias at institutional and systemic levels to create a fair and supportive environment for primary care researchers. A multitude of strategies are needed including increasing representation of racialized female faculty, creating supportive and psychologically safe work environments, and public reporting of data on faculty composition for accreditation and funding decisions. Together, these strategies can alleviate the triple whammy and free these researchers from the Sisyphus Punishment – the absurdity of being asked to climb a hill while pushing a boulder with no hope of reaching the top. Funding College of Family Physicians of Canada.