Dataset Information

The Gender of COVID-19 Experts in Newspaper Articles: a Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pre-existing gender-based disparities in academia may have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Being cited as an expert source in newspaper articles about COVID-19 may increase an individual's research or leadership profile. In addition, visibility in a newspaper article is an important component of representation in academia.

Objective

To determine whether women were underrepresented as COVID-19 expert sources in print newspapers in the USA.

Design

We undertook a cross-sectional study of English-language newspaper articles that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and that were published in the top 10 most widely read newspapers in the USA between April 1 and April 15, 2020.

Main measures

We extracted the names of all people cited as expert sources and categorized the gender of each expert source based on pronoun usage within the article or on a business, university, or organization website. The professional role of each expert was assigned based on their description in the article.

Key results

Of 2297 expert sources identified, 35.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.9-37.8%; n = 824) were women and 63.7% were men (95% CI 61.8-65.7%; n = 1464). This result was similar when considering unique experts in each newspaper and for all included newspapers; of the 1738 unique experts per newspaper, 34.6% were women (95% CI 32.3-36.8%; n = 601), and of the 1593 unique experts in all newspapers, 36.5% were women (95% CI 34.1-38.9%; n = 581). Of articles with multiple experts referenced (n = 374), 102 cited only men experts (27.3%) and 44 cited only women experts (11.8%). Women were underrepresented as experts as Healthcare Workers and Professionals, Non-STEM Experts, Public Health Leaders, and STEM Scientists. There were no differences in the proportion of women experts between newspapers or between different regions of the USA.

Conclusions

Altogether, our findings support that men academics outnumber women as COVID-19 experts in newspaper articles.

SUBMITTER: Fletcher S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7815280 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundsThe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with increasing morbidity and mortality has impacted the lives of the global population, including medical education. With the return of on-site medical education in Jordan, it is important to know whether this would pose any risk of COVID-19 infection in medical students.ObjectiveTo investigate COVID-19 infection infection rates among medical students and whether there is difference between preclinical and clinical students' infection rate.MethodsThe study is a cross-sectional study, designed to (1) determine the incidence of COVID-19 in clinical and preclinical medical students (2) determine if there is a difference in infection rates between clinical and preclinical students. The study was situated at the University of Jordan and its affiliated hospitals. Data were collected from the 4th of December 2020 till the 17th of February 2021through a structured web-based questionnaire.ResultsA total of 1,830 responses were retrieved. Thirty-nine percent were males, and (61.5%) were females. Overall, 237(13%) of students reported testing positive for COVID-19 infection by PCR, of which 123 were clinical students (15.2%) and 114 were pre-clinical students (11.2%), representing a relative risk of 1.36 of COVID-19 infection among clinical students compared to pre-clinical students. This difference is statistically significant (P = 0.010). Rates of COVID-19 in females 13%; CI 7.5,18.4), were very close to those of males (12.9%; 95% CI 6.0,19.8). Positive COVID-19 cases peaked in November and October forming 36.3% and 32.9% of the cases, respectively.ConclusionThe incidence of positive COVID-19 tests was found to be higher among clinical students as compared to pre-clinical students. Commitment to general health safety precautions did not appear to be protective enough for clinical students. It is fundamental that additional strategies, including access to vaccines, are set, and deficiencies in current protections are identified to maintain students' safety and well-being.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the lockdowns to contain the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda, women and girls, disproportionately, had increased exposure to gender-based violence (GBV). Access to high-quality and empowering information or knowledge to minimise the incidences of GBV for women, girls, men and boys, was, therefore, crucial. The purpose of this study was to understand the characteristics of the individuals who were unable to access such information, and if received information, was associated with more awareness in the populace.MethodsThe data analysed were from a cross-sectional nationally representative phone survey of individuals aged 18 years and above from all four regions of Uganda. The survey was carried out by Uganda Bureau of Statistics using a purely quantitative approach, and all questions were closed-ended. The sample was stratified by sex, age, and geographical region, and executed in November 2020, six months after COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Binary logistic regression analysis was used for data analysis in STATA software.FindingsFemale respondents with tertiary education (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.26, 0.85) and male respondents with tertiary education (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.00) were more likely to receive information on GBV prevention. Both female (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.88) and male (aOR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.87) respondents who were working had about a third the odds of being unable to access information about GBV prevention. Female respondents living in urban areas were associated with less odds of being unable to access the information (aOR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.00), while unmarried male respondents had higher odds of being unable to access the information (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.89). Respondents who reported being vulnerable to GBV were also more likely to know someone who experienced GBV. This was similar for female respondents (PR = 3.00; 95% CI: 2.26, 3.98) and male respondents (PR = 3.01, 95% CI: 2.3, 3.95) (PR = 5.49; 95% CI = 4.12-7.30). Results also indicated that both male (PR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.43) and female respondents (PR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.37) who did not perceive themselves at risk of GBV were less likely to know a GBV survivor.InterpretationThe individuals who were unable to access information had characteristics associated with GBV perpetration or victimization. Monitoring the dissemination and quality of information empowers individuals and communities to develop local solutions to GBV prevention and protection. The design of GBV prevention messages and delivery channels needs to take into consideration the risk factors at the different levels of the socio-ecological model (individual, community, institutional, and society). Interventions aimed at increasing access to information on GBV prevention should consider the different socio-demographic as well as context-specific factors.FundingThere was no funding source for this study.