Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model

Henderson, Lorna; Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar; Ovseiko, Pavel V; Dam, Rinita; Buchan, Alastair; McShane, Helen; Kiparoglou, Vasiliki

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239589

Cited by 9 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In regards to gender parity in authorship of scientific publications, which is an important marker of achievement for gender equity, 7 our study builds an important evidence base in biomedical research settings and our results support previous studies. 13 25 45-47 We found that male first corresponding authors were more likely to publish articles in high impact factor journals compared with female first corresponding authors (table 6).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…We also conclude that it is feasible to analyse bibliometric data on publications arising from NIHR funding by gender and consider establishing processes for monitoring gender Open access equity in scientific authorship as an important marker of achievement in the context of NIHR BRCs. 7…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As more data become available, this would enable longitudinal analysis of gender in scientific authorship, which could be useful for tracking progress towards gender equity and related issues such as markers of achievement across all NIHR BRCs. 7 In addition, since the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership in translational research is one of the stated objectives of the NIHR, investigating the extent of gender equity in scientific authorship may usefully inform strategies to accelerate women's advancement and leadership in NIHR-funded research. Moreover, bibliometric analyses used by the NIHR to inform competition for NIHR funding may incorporate the gender dimension into the analysis, which could provide additional information on the competitiveness for NIHR funding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 33 34 This study was carried out as part of a wider programme of research on the markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations. 7 30 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the perspective of gender equity in academia and scientific research, gender parity in scientific authorship is an important measure of achievement. 7 The term gender parity refers to ‘the equal contribution of women and men to different dimensions of life’ and it is operationalised as a ‘relative equality in terms of numbers and proportions of women and men’ for a particular indicator. 8 Gender (dis)parity in scientific authorship has important implications for gender equity in academic advancement 9 because scientific authorship is commonly used as a measure of academic productivity that is used for performance management, reward and recognition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Advancing women in healthcare leadership: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Women are underrepresented in healthcare leadership, yet evidence on impactful organisational strategies, practices and policies that advance women's careers are limited. We aimed to explore these across sectors to gain insight into measurably advancing women in leadership in healthcare. Methods: A systematic review was performed across Medline via OVID; Medline in-process and other nonindexed citations via OVID; PsycINFO and SCOPUS from January 2000 to March 2021. Methods are outlined in a published protocol registered a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42020162115). Eligible studies reported on organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership with at least one measurable outcome. Studies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Identified interventions were organised into categories and meta-synthesis was completed following the 'ENhancing Transparency in REporting the synthesis of Qualitative research' (ENTREQ) statement. Findings: There were 91 eligible studies from 6 continents with 40 quantitative, 38 qualitative and 13 mixed methods studies. These spanned academia, health, government, sports, hospitality, finance and information technology sectors, with around half of studies in health and academia. Sample size, career stage and outcomes ranged broadly. Potentially effective interventions consistently reported that organisational leadership, commitment and accountability were key drivers of organisational change. Organisational intervention categories included i) organisational processes; ii) awareness and engagement; iii) mentoring and networking; iv) leadership development; and v) support tools. A descriptive meta-synthesis of detailed strategies, policies and practices within these categories was completed. Interpretation: This review provides an evidence base on organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership across diverse settings, with lessons for healthcare. It transcends the focus on the individual to target organisational change, capturing measurable change across intervention categories. This work directly informs a national initiative with international links, to enable women to achieve their career goals in healthcare and moves beyond the focus on barriers to solutions.

show abstract

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC): A qualitative study

Henderson

Dam

Shah

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organisations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognised by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of womens advancement and leadership. Objectives To explore both women's and men's perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. Methods Thematic analysis of data from two discrete research projects: 53 GE survey respondents free text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. Results Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena Swan Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt current markers of achievement were not equitable to women as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC specific organisational policies and metrics are required to monitor and catalyse GE. Conclusions Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should take into account contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complimented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion.

show abstract

Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

Advancing women in healthcare leadership: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC): A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About