PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Diabetes Mellitus

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Dunne, Jessica L.
    ;
    Maizel, Jennifer L.
    ;
    Posgai, Amanda L.
    ;
    Atkinson, Mark A.
    ;
    DiMeglio, Linda A.
    Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Cevik, Muge
    ;
    Haque, Syed Arefinul
    ;
    Manne-Goehler, Jennifer
    ;
    Kuppalli, Krutika
    ;
    Sax, Paul E.
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials. METHODS: We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/. RESULTS: Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Global architecture of gestational diabetes research: Density-equalizing mapping studies and gender analysis Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Brüggmann, D.
    ;
    Richter, T.
    ;
    Klingelhöfer, D.
    ;
    Gerber, A.
    ;
    Bundschuh, M.
    Objective: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with substantial morbidity for mothers and their offspring. While clinical and basic research activities on this important disease grow constantly, there is no concise analysis of global architecture of GDM research. Hence, it was the objective of this study to assess the global scientific performance chronologically, geographically and in relation to existing research networks and gender distribution of publishing authors. Study design: On the basis of the New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science (NewQIS) platform, scientometric methods were combined with modern visualizing techniques such as density equalizing mapping, and the Web of Science database was used to assess GDM-related entries from 1900 to 2012. Results: Twelve thousand five hundred four GDM-related publications were identified and analyzed. The USA (4295 publications) and the UK (1354 publications) dominated the field concerning research activity, overall citations and country-specific Hirsch-Index, which quantified the impact of a country's published research on the scientific community. Semi-qualitative indices such as country-specific citation rates ranked New Zealand and the UK at top positions. Annual collaborative publications increased steeply between the years 1990 and 2012 (71 to 1157 respectively). Subject category analysis pointed to a minor interest of public health issues in GDM research. Gender analysis in terms of publication authorship revealed a clear dominance of the male gender until 2005; then a trend towards gender equity started and the activity of female scientists grew visibly in many countries. The country-specific gender analysis revealed large differences, i.e. female scientists dominated the scientific output in the USA, whereas the majority of research was published by male authors in countries such as Japan. Conclusion: This study provides the first global sketch of GDM research architecture. While North-American and Western-European countries were dominating the GDM-related scientific landscape, a disparity exists in terms of research output between developed and low-resource countries. Since GDM is linked to considerable mortality and morbidity of mothers and their offspring and constitutes a tremendous burden for the healthcare systems in underserved countries, our findings emphasize the need to address disparities by fostering research endeavors, public health programs and collaborative efforts in these nations. © 2016 Brüggmann et al.