BackgroundGlobal surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature.MethodsWe performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks.Results1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs.ConclusionAuthorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

No abstract

Background With large swathes of the world’s population—majority clustered in low- and middle-income countries—still yet to receive the minimum of two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine; The need to address the failures of international solidarity to equitably distribute COVID-19 vaccines is now more urgent than ever to help curb the pandemic and prevent future variants. However, many high-income countries have adopted a “me first” approach, proceeding to offer COVID-19 booster doses to their entire populations, including those at least risk of severe illness, whilst the rest of the world is left unvaccinated or partially vaccinated with one dose for even their most vulnerable communities. Main body COVID-19 vaccine inequity places the health of the global population at risk and exacerbates socio-economic repercussions, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Initiatives launched to combat vaccine inequity such as the Fair Allocation Framework for the COVID-19 Vaccines (COVAX) have been unsuccessful as several governments, primarily from high-income countries, have scaled down their contributions to the initiative. Furthermore, COVAX has not seriously engaged with the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Health Systems Connector, as was originally intended, leading to crucial health systems components critical to vaccine delivery to be overlooked. Several strategies can be employed to help achieve the desired global immunization goals, such as Intellectual Property waivers, increased donations, and activation of new COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing hubs. In addition, continued advocacy for vaccine equity by all involved and affected stakeholders, as well as critical amendments to existing or upcoming legislation and funding mechanisms will help address the shortcomings of current inequitable vaccine distribution. Conclusions Global solidarity and collective action through pandemic governance mechanisms are urgently needed to ensure vaccine equity. These interventions are vital to rapidly mitigate ongoing health and humanitarian crises and ultimately curb the pandemic, sooner rather than later.

No abstract

No abstract