Gender Differences in Authorship of Clinical Problem-Solving Articles.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Adler E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518139 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Gender Differences in Authorship of Clinical Problem-Solving Articles.
Adler Elizabeth E Hobbs Andrew A Dhaliwal Gurpreet G Babik Jennifer M JM
Journal of hospital medicine 20200801 8
Authors of clinical reasoning exercises analyze diagnostic dilemmas and serve as role models of clinical excellence. We investigated the percentage of women authors in the clinical problem-solving series of three general medicine journals from the inaugural article in each series until July 2019. Women were underrepresented among first, last, and all authors. While the percentage of women among first and all authors has increased, women still constituted <40% of all authors and ≤25% of last auth ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor.Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [P < 0.01] and 0.51% [P < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45).Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.
| S-EPMC7124723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsSeveral studies have reported the under-representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration and to analyse the fraction of women participating in phases I, II and III.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional, structured research into publicly available registration dossiers of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that are prescribed frequently. Furthermore, we analysed compounds with high hepatic clearance and a known gender-related difference in drug response. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared figures with US disease prevalence data.ResultsFor 38 of the initial 137 drugs (28%), sufficient data were reported and publicly available. For these drugs, 185 479 trial participants were included, of whom 47% were female and 44% were male; gender was not reported for 9% of participants. However, the number of female participants varied with the phase of the trial, with 22% females in phase I trials vs. 48% and 49%, respectively, in phase II and III trials. When compared with US disease prevalence data, 10 drugs (26%) had a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected with the disease compared with representation in clinical trials.ConclusionsFrom these publicly available data, there was no evidence of any systematic under-representation of women in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5867082 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6945286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Published clinical problem solving exercises have emerged as a common tool to illustrate aspects of the clinical reasoning process. The specific clinical reasoning terms mentioned in such exercises is unknown. Objective We identified which clinical reasoning terms are mentioned in published clinical problem solving exercises and compared them to clinical reasoning terms given high priority by clinician educators. Methods A convenience sample of clinician educators prioritized a list of clinical reasoning terms (whether to include, weight percentage of top 20 terms). The authors then electronically searched the terms in the text of published reports of 4 internal medicine journals between January 2010 and May 2013. Results The top 5 clinical reasoning terms ranked by educators were dual-process thinking (weight percentage = 24%), problem representation (12%), illness scripts (9%), hypothesis generation (7%), and problem categorization (7%). The top clinical reasoning terms mentioned in the text of 79 published reports were context specificity (n = 20, 25%), bias (n = 13, 17%), dual-process thinking (n = 11, 14%), illness scripts (n = 11, 14%), and problem representation (n = 10, 13%). Context specificity and bias were not ranked highly by educators. Conclusions Some core concepts of modern clinical reasoning theory ranked highly by educators are mentioned explicitly in published clinical problem solving exercises. However, some highly ranked terms were not used, and some terms used were not ranked by the clinician educators. Effort to teach clinical reasoning to trainees may benefit from a common nomenclature of clinical reasoning terms.
| S-EPMC4857501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles.ObjectiveWe sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals.Design/setting/participantsIn this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018.Primary outcome measureAuthorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal.Secondary outcome measuresTo compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author.ResultsOf the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles.ConclusionsWomen physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
| S-EPMC7044872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diet induces parallel changes to the gut microbiota and problem solving performance in a wild bird
| PRJEB40949 | ENA
Project description:ObjectiveConcerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted research productivity to the disadvantage of women in academia, particularly in early career stages. In this study, we aimed to assess the pandemic's effect on women's COVID-19-related publishing over the first year of the pandemic.Methods and resultsWe compared the gender distribution of first authorships for 42 898 publications on COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 to 483 232 publications appearing in the same journals during the same period the year prior. We found that the gender gap-the percentage of articles on which men versus women were first authors-widened by 14 percentage points during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite many pertinent research fields showing near equal proportions of men and women first authors publishing in the same fields before the pandemic. Longitudinal analyses revealed that the significant initial expansions of the gender gap began to trend backwards to expected values over time in many fields. As women may have been differentially affected depending on their geography, we also assessed the gender distribution of first authorships grouped by countries and geographical areas. While we observed a significant reduction of the shares of women first authors in almost all countries, longitudinal analyses confirmed a resolving trend over time.ConclusionThe reduction in women's COVID-19-related research output appears particularly concerning as many disciplines informing the response to the pandemic had near equal gender shares of first authorship in the year prior to the pandemic. The acute productivity drain with the onset of the pandemic magnifies deep-rooted obstacles on the way to gender equity in scientific contribution.
| S-EPMC8025238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper we argue that a synthesis of findings across the various sub-areas of research in complex problem solving and consequently progress in theory building is hampered by an insufficient differentiation of complexity and difficulty. In the proposed framework of person, task, and situation (PTS), complexity is conceptualized as a quality that is determined by the cognitive demands that the characteristics of the task and the situation impose. Difficulty represents the quantifiable level of a person's success in dealing with such demands. We use the well-documented "semantic effect" as an exemplar for testing some of the conceptual assumptions derived from the PTS framework. We demonstrate how a differentiation between complexity and difficulty can help take beyond a potentially too narrowly defined psychometric perspective and subsequently gain a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms behind this effect. In an empirical study a total of 240 university students were randomly allocated to one of four conditions. The four conditions resulted from contrasting the semanticity level of the variable labels used in the CPS system (high vs. low) and two instruction conditions for how to explore the CPS system's causal structure (starting with the assumption that all relationships between variables existed vs. starting with the assumption that none of the relationships existed). The variation in the instruction aimed at inducing knowledge acquisition processes of either (1) systematic elimination of presumptions, or (2) systematic compilation of a mental representation of the causal structure underpinning the system. Results indicate that (a) it is more complex to adopt a "blank slate" perspective under high semanticity as it requires processes of inhibiting prior assumptions, and (b) it seems more difficult to employ a systematic heuristic when testing against presumptions. In combination, situational characteristics, such as the semanticity of variable labels, have the potential to trigger qualitatively different tasks. Failing to differentiate between 'task' and 'situation' as independent sources of complexity and treating complexity and difficulty synonymously threaten the validity of performance scores obtained in CPS research.
| S-EPMC5641385 | biostudies-other
Project description:By presenting individual Octopus vulgaris with an extractive foraging problem with a puzzle box, we examined the possible correlation between behavioural performances (e.g., ease of adaptation to captive conditions, prevalence of neophobic and neophilic behaviours, and propensity to learn individually or by observing conspecifics), biotic (body and brain size, age, sex) and abiotic (seasonality and place of origin) factors. We found more neophilic animals showing shorter latencies to approach the puzzle box and higher probability of solving the task; also, shorter times to solve the task were correlated with better performance on the individual learning task. However, the most neophilic octopuses that approached the puzzle box more quickly did not reach the solution earlier than other individuals, suggesting that strong neophilic tendency may lead to suboptimal performance at some stages of the problem-solving process. In addition, seasonal and environmental characteristics of location of origin appear to influence the rate of expression of individual traits central to problem solving. Overall, our analysis provides new insights into the traits associated with problem solving in invertebrates and highlights the presence of adaptive mechanisms that promote population-level changes in octopuses' behavioural traits.
| S-EPMC10740590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:According to the restructuring hypothesis, insight problem solving typically progresses through consecutive stages of search, impasse, insight, and search again for someone, who solves the task. The order of these stages was determined through self-reports of problem solvers and has never been verified behaviorally. We asked whether individual analysis of problem solving attempts of participants revealed the same order of problem solving stages as defined by the theory and whether their subjective feelings corresponded to the problem solving stages they were in. Our participants tried to solve the Five-Square problem in an online task, while we recorded the time and trajectory of their stick movements. After the task they were asked about their feelings related to insight and some of them also had the possibility of reporting impasse while working on the task. We found that the majority of participants did not follow the classic four-stage model of insight, but had more complex sequences of problem solving stages, with search and impasse recurring several times. This means that the classic four-stage model is not sufficient to describe variability on the individual level. We revised the classic model and we provide a new model that can generate all sequences found. Solvers reported insight more often than non-solvers and non-solvers reported impasse more often than solvers, as expected; but participants did not report impasse more often during behaviorally defined impasse stages than during other stages. This shows that impasse reports might be unreliable indicators of impasse. Our study highlights the importance of individual analysis of problem solving behavior to verify insight theory.
| S-EPMC4523725 | biostudies-literature