PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Randomized Controlled Trial

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender trends in authorship of randomized clinical trials in dentistry Open PDF 
    (FapUNIFESP (SciELO), 2025)
    PRADO, Mayara Colpo
    ;
    DOTTO, Lara
    ;
    AGOSTINI, Bernardo Antônio
    ;
    ONOFRE, Rafael Sarkis
    The aim of the study was to explore female authorship in various aspects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. A search was performed in PubMed for RCTs, in dentistry, indexed from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2021. Only studies in English were considered. Data selection and extraction were performed by two authors and the following data collected: year of publication, journal, subject, number and names of authors, and country and gender (Genderize website) of the first 10 authors. Descriptive analyses, graphs, and maps were generated. Poisson regression assessed the influence of continent and year of publication on the presence of women as first or last authors. The results were presented as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). A total of 844 RCTs and 4,305 authors (2,372 men and 1,662 women) were included. Gender disparity increases as the order of authorship advances. Among first authors, men represent 50.59% and women 44.08%, whereas among last authors, they account for 61.92% and 34.03%, respectively. Analyses showed no association between year of publication and the presence of women as authors. There were fewer women as first authors in Europe (PR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.68-0.99) and as last authors in Europe and Asia (PR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.53-0.87 and PR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.63-0.99, respectively). The findings highlight a lower presence of female authors in all aspects analyzed in the RCTs, especially in last authorship. Also, there has been no indication of improvement in recent years. Female participation in RCTs is crucial not only for gender equity but also as a means to enhance the quality and relevance of clinical data for decision-making.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2017)
    Devine, P.G.
    ;
    Forscher, P.S.
    ;
    Cox, W.T.L.
    ;
    Kaatz, A.
    ;
    Sheridan, J.
    Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters (N = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments and perceptions of a more positive departmental climate. Following this initial success, the present study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation. Whereas the proportion of women hired by control departments remained stable over time, the proportion of women hired by intervention departments increased by an estimated 18 percentage points (OR = 2.23, dOR = 0.34). Though the preregistered analysis did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.07), the study has a hard upper limit on statistical power, as the cluster-randomized trial has a maximum sample size of 92 departmental clusters. These findings, however, have undeniable practical significance for the advancement of women in science, and provide promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.