Dataset Information

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. METHODS:Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. RESULTS:For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49). CONCLUSIONS:Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.

SUBMITTER: Jabbarpour Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7708287 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

Jabbarpour Yalda Y Wilkinson Elizabeth E Coffman Megan M Mieses Alexa A

Annals of family medicine 20201101 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals.<h4>Methods</h4>Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (<i>Family Medicine</i>, <i>Journal of the American Board of Family ...[more]

PMID: 33168677

Similar Datasets

Project description:In academia, authorship is considered a currency and is important for career advancement. As the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) is the highest-ranked journal in the field of bone, muscle, and mineral metabolism and is the official publication of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, we sought to examine authorship changes over JBMR's 30-year history. Two bibliometric methods were used to collect the data. The "decade method" included all published manuscripts throughout 1 year in each decade over the past 30 years starting with the inaugural year, yielding 746 manuscripts for analysis. The "random method" examined 10% of published manuscripts from each of the 30 years, yielding 652 manuscripts for analysis. Using both methods, the average number of authors per manuscript, numerical location of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions, number of collaborating countries, number of printed manuscript pages, and the number of times each manuscript was cited all significantly increased between 1986 and 2015 (p < 10-4 ). Using the decade method, there was a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors over time from 35.8% in 1986 to 47.7% in 2015 (p = 0.02), and this trend was confirmed using the random method. The highest percentage of female first authors in 2015 was in Europe (60.0%), and Europe also had the most dramatic increase in female first authors over time (more than double in 2015 compared with 1986). Likewise, the overall number of female corresponding authors significantly increased during the past 30 years. With the increasing demands of publishing in academic medicine, understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by geographical region is important. These findings highlight JBMR's authorship trends over the past 30 years and demonstrate those countries having the most changes and where challenges still exist. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.DesignCross sectional study.SettingNine specialist and two large general medical journals.PopulationAuthors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: first author's gender.Secondary outcomeslast and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic.ResultsA total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.ConclusionsWomen have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.ObjectiveTo determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.ResultsOf 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

Project description:Interdisciplinary research collaboration is needed to perform transformative science and accelerate innovation. The Science of Team Science strives to investigate, evaluate, and foster team science, including institutional policies that may promote or hinder collaborative interdisciplinary research and the resources and infrastructure needed to promote team science within and across institutions. Social network analysis (SNA) has emerged as a useful method to measure interdisciplinary science through the evaluation of several types of collaboration networks, including co-authorship networks. Likewise, research administrators are responsible for conducting rigorous evaluation of policies and initiatives. Within this paper, we present a case study using SNA to evaluate inter-programmatic collaboration (evidenced by co-authoring scientific papers) from 2007-2014 among scientists who are members of four formal research programs at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, the Markey Cancer Center (MCC) at the University of Kentucky. We evaluate change in network descriptives over time and implement separable temporal exponential-family random graph models (STERGMs) to estimate the effect of author and network variables on the tendency to form a co-authorship tie. We measure the diversity of the articles published over time (Blau's Index) to understand whether the changes in the co-authorship network are reflected in the diversity of articles published by research members. Over the 8-year period, we found increased inter-programmatic collaboration among research members as evidenced by co-authorship of published scientific papers. Over time, MCC Members collaborated more with others outside of their research program and outside their initial dense co-authorship groups, however tie formation continues to be driven by co-authoring with individuals of the same research program and academic department. Papers increased in diversity over time on all measures with the exception of author gender. This inter-programmatic research was fostered by policy changes in cancer center administration encouraging interdisciplinary research through both informal (e.g., annual retreats, seminar series) and formal (e.g., requiring investigators from more than two research programs on applications for pilot funding) means. Within this cancer center, interdisciplinary co-authorship increased over time as policies encouraging this collaboration were implemented. Yet, there is room for improvement in creating more interdisciplinary and diverse ties between research program members.

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) over the last two decades has prompted the economic assessments of these treatments by reimbursement authorities. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the modeling approach and data sources used in economic evaluations of DMTs for RMS, identify differences and similarities, and explore how economic evaluation models have evolved over time.MethodsMEDLINE®, Embase®, and EBM Reviews databases were searched using Ovid® Platform from database inception on 25 December 2019 and subsequently updated on 17 February 2021. In addition, health technology assessment agency websites, key conference proceedings, and gray literature from relevant websites were screened. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond and Philips checklists.ResultsA total 155 publications and 30 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were included. Most of these were cost-utility analysis (73 studies and 25 HTA reports) and funded by medicines manufacturers (n = 65). The top three countries where studies were conducted were the USA (n = 29), the UK (n = 16), and Spain (n = 10). Studies predominantly used Markov cohort models (94 studies; 25 HTAs) structured based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) with 21 health states (20 studies; 12 HTA reports). The London Ontario and British Columbia data sets were commonly used sources for natural history data (n = 33; n = 13). Twelve studies and ten HTAs from the UK assumed a waning of DMT effect over the long term, while this was uncommon in studies from other countries. Nineteen studies adjusted for multiple sclerosis (MS)-specific mortality estimates, while 18 studies used data from the national life table without adjustment. Studies prominently referred to mortality data that were about two decades old. The data on treatment effect was generally obtained from randomized controlled trials (43 studies; 7 HTAs) or from published evidence synthesis (23 studies; 24 HTAs). Utility estimates were derived from either published studies and/or supplemented with data from RCTs. Most of the models used the lifetime horizon (n = 37) with a 1-year cycle length (n = 63).ConclusionAs expected, similarities as well as differences were observed across the different economic models. Available evidence suggests models should continue using the Markov cohort model with 21 EDSS-based states, however, allowing the transition to a lower EDSS state and assuming a sustained treatment effect. With reference to the data sources, models should consider using a contemporary MS-specific mortality data, recent natural history data, and country-specific utility data if available. In case of data unavailability, a sensitivity analysis using multiple sources of data should be conducted. In addition, future models should incorporate other clinically relevant outcomes, such as the cognition, vision, and psychological aspects of RMS, to be able to present the comprehensive value of DMTs.

Dataset Information

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

Publications

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets