No abstract

Purpose In the highly gendered academic sector, womens’ high participation rates have not translated into equal career progression with men. Existing literature suggests that early career publication success is a good indicator of long-term publication success. This research is intended to provide a better understanding of whether the notions of success espoused by neo-liberal universities align with the subjective measures of what constitutes academic success for women ECRs (early career researchers). Design/methodology/approach The study examines the perceptions of nine successful women ECRs at an Australian university. It uses collaborative autoethnography with thematic analysis of participants’ self-reflective narratives on being a successful ECR. Findings Five themes were identified. One focussed on objective academic success, which included publications, grants and citations. The other four themes – living a balanced life, making a difference, labour of love and freedom and flexibility – offered more subjective views of success. These included: research making a contribution to society, undertaking research they are passionate about, having autonomy in their role and achieving work-life balance. Practical implications The findings demonstrate that women define success in broader terms than neo-liberal universities, and future studies should consider these divergent definitions. Universities committed to equality should understand differences in how women may approach career progress and incorporate this into support processes and in alignment of individual and university goals. Originality/value This research offers unique insights into the experience of post-doctoral employment for women in the academic environment and the factors influencing their success in this early career phase.

Background: Vaccine pharmacovigilance is at the forefront of the public eye. Shoulder Injuries Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) is a poorly understood Adverse Event Following Immunisation, with iatrogenic origins. Criteria for medicolegal diagnosis of SIRVA is conflicting, current literature and educational materials are lacking, and healthcare practitioner knowledge of the condition is unknown. Methods: A cross-sectional, convenience sampled survey, utilising a validated online questionnaire assessed practitioner knowledge of SIRVA, safe injecting, and upper limb anatomy, and preferred definition for SIRVA. Results: Mean scores were moderate for safe injecting knowledge (69%), and poor for knowledge of anatomy (42%) and SIRVA (55%). Non-immunising healthcare practitioners scored significantly (p = 0.01, and < 0.05, respectively) higher than immunising practitioners for anatomy (2.213 ± 1.52 vs. 3.12 ± 1.50), and safe injecting knowledge (6.70 ± 1.34 vs. 7.14 ± 1.27). Only 52% of authorised vaccinators accurately selected a 40 × 20 mm area recommended for safe injecting. Majority (91.7%) of respondents thought nerve injuries should be included in the diagnostic criteria for SIRVA. Discussion and conclusions: Greater education and awareness of SIRVA is needed in all healthcare disciplines. Consensus regarding SIRVA definition is paramount for accurate reporting and improved future understanding of all aspects of SIRVA.

Objective: To evaluate effects of stationary cycling exercise on pain, function and stiffness in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Data sources: Systematic search conducted in seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, PEDro, and CNKI) from inception to September 2020. Review methods: Included studies were randomized-controlled trials involving stationary cycling exercise conducted on individuals with knee osteoarthritis. End-trial weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were analyzed, and random-effects models were used. Methodological quality and risk bias were assessed by using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool, respectively. Results: Eleven studies with 724 participants were found, of which the final meta-analysis was performed with eight. Compared to a control (no exercise), stationary cycling exercise resulted in reduced pain (WMD 12.86, 95% CI 6.90–18.81) and improved sport performance (WMD 8.06, 95% CI 0.92–15.20); although most of the meta-analysis results were statistically significant, improvements in stiffness (WMD 11.47, 95% CI 4.69–18.25), function (WMD 8.28, 95% CI 2.44–14.11), symptoms (WMD 4.15, 95% CI −1.87 to 10.18), daily living (WMD 6.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 9.66) and quality of life (WMD 0.99, 95% CI −4.27 to 6.25) for individuals with knee osteoarthritis were not greater than the minimal clinically important difference values for each of these outcome measures. Conclusions: Stationary cycling exercise relieves pain and improves sport function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis, but may not be as clinically effective for improving stiffness, daily activity, and quality of life.

No abstract