US COVID-19 clinical trial leadership gender disparities.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sehgal NKR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9946457 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
US COVID-19 clinical trial leadership gender disparities.
Sehgal Neil K R NKR Brownstein John S JS Majumder Maimuna S MS Tuli Gaurav G
The Lancet. Digital health 20230301 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials.MethodsWe searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/.ResultsOnly 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05).ConclusionWe demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.
| S-EPMC7785275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Due to major work disruptions caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, supervisors in organizations are facing leadership challenges as they attempt to manage "work from home" arrangements, the health and safety of essential workers, and workforce reductions. Accordingly, the present research seeks to understand what types of leadership employees think is most important for supervisors to exhibit when managing these crisis-related contexts and, in light of assertions that women may be better leaders during times of crisis, examines gender differences in how male and female supervisors act and how subordinates perceive and evaluate them in real (Study 1) and hypothetical (Study 2) settings. Results indicate that communal leader behaviors were more important to employees in all three crisis contexts. In Study 1, communality was a stronger predictor than agency of supervisor likability and competence. In Study 2, communality was also more positively related to likability, but agency and communality were equally predictive of competence ratings. Ratings of real supervisors suggest that women were not more communal than men when managing these crises, nor did perceptions of leader behavior differ by supervisor gender in a controlled experiment. However, evaluations of women's competence were more directly related to their display of communal behaviors than were evaluations of male supervisors. This research is helpful practically in understanding effective supervisory leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and contributes to the literature on gender and leadership in crisis contexts by attempting to disentangle gender differences in leader behaviors, perceptions, and evaluations.
| S-EPMC8990613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper we explore whether countries led by women have fared better during the COVID-19 pandemic than those led by men. Media and public health officials have lauded the perceived gender-related influence on policies and strategies for reducing the deleterious effects of the pandemic. We examine this proposition by analyzing COVID-19-related deaths globally across countries led by men and women. While we find some limited support for lower reported fatality rates in countries led by women, they are not statistically significant. Country cultural values offer more substantive explanation for COVID-19 outcomes. We offer several potential explanations for the pervasive perception that countries led by women have fared better during the pandemic, including data selection bias and Western media bias that amplified the successes of women leaders in OECD countries.
| S-EPMC7774849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have highlighted the paucity of women-led randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Whether this finding also applies to cardiac surgery has not been evaluated. In this study, we evaluate women authorship, leadership, and women enrollment in cardiac surgery RCTs.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify RCTs comparing 2 or more adult cardiac surgical procedures published from 2000 to 2022. Women-led RCTs were defined as those with a woman as either a first or last author. Linear regression and correlation analyses were used.ResultsOf 58 RCTs, 8 (13.8%) were women-led; 17 (29.3%) RCTs had no women authors. Overall, 17.9% of all authors were women, but only 1.2% of all authors were women cardiac surgeons and only 19% of the RCTs had a women cardiac surgeon among the authors. The median proportion of women authors was 14.3% by RCT, which was significantly higher in women-led compared with men-led RCTs (28.6% vs 11.8%; P = .01). No significant change in the proportion of women authors was observed during the study period. North American RCTs had a higher proportion of women authors compared with other geographic regions (28.6% vs 12.5%; P = .01). No correlation was found between the proportion of women authors and the proportion of women participants enrolled in individual RCTs.ConclusionsDuring the last 2 decades, only a minority of cardiac surgery RCTs were women-led, and no significant increase in women authorship occurred. There are important geographic differences in women authorship.
| S-EPMC10468099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly created widespread impacts on global health and the economy. Data suggest that women are less susceptible to severe illness. However, sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, leaving room for misinterpretation, and focusing only on biologic sex underestimates the gendered impact of the pandemic on women. This narrative review summarizes what is known about gender disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic, domestic, and health burdens along with overlapping vulnerabilities related to the pandemic. In addition, this review outlines recommended strategies that advocacy groups, community leaders, and policymakers should implement to mitigate the widening gender disparities related to COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8057762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated several existing health disparities in the U.S. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) health disparities may also be widening during the pandemic, though few studies have assessed this question. This study examined SGM young adult disparities in health-related behaviors to cope with isolation during the pandemic.MethodsRespondents from a prospective cohort of Southern California young adults (N = 2,298) reported whether they engaged in various strategies (e.g., substance use, diet, exercise, relaxation) to cope with isolation during the pandemic (each: yes/no). Differences in coping were assessed across five SGM subgroups: heterosexual men and women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer (LGBQ) men and women, transgender/nonbinary (TNB) respondents. Negative binomial regressions estimated sexual/gender identity differences in the number of positive or negative behaviors endorsed, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prepandemic health behaviors. Differences were also tested across individual coping behaviors.ResultsHeterosexual women (IRR = 1.11 [1.01-1.21]), LGBQ men (IRR = 1.31 [1.12-1.54]), LGBQ women (IRR = 1.33 [1.19-1.49]), and TNB respondents (IRR = 1.29 [1.03-1.61]) engaged in more negative coping behaviors than heterosexual men. LGBQ men (IRR = 1.19 [1.02-1.39]) and LGBQ women (IRR = 1.20 [1.08-1.34]) also reported more negative coping behaviors versus heterosexual women. Generally, LGBQ men reported the highest prevalence of substance use, while LGBQ women and TNB reported the highest prevalence of adverse eating behaviors and self-harm.ConclusionsSGM young adults may be disproportionately, adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Tailored public health and clinical interventions are needed to decrease pandemic-related SGM health disparities.
| S-EPMC8456158 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9232956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO)
| PRJNA791979 | ENA
Project description:Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO)
| PRJNA791978 | ENA
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in healthcare utilization are reported in different contexts. Nevertheless, studies have not explored specifically gender disparities in access to healthcare in the context of COVID-19.MethodsTo evaluate gender disparities in access to medical in Chile we conducted an interrupted time series analysis using segmented regression. The outcome variable was the number of weekly confirmed cases of a set of oncologic and cardiovascular time-sensitive conditions at a national level. The series contained data from weeks 1 to 39 for 2017 to 2020. The intervention period started at week 12. We selected this period because preventive interventions, such as school closures or teleworking, were implemented at this point. We estimated the level effect using a dummy variable indicating the intervention period and slope effect using a continuous variable from weeks 12 to 39. To test heterogeneity by gender and age group, we conducted a stratified analysis.ResultsWe observed a sizable reduction in access to care with a slowly recovery for oncologic (level effect 0.323; 95% CI 0.291-0.359; slope effect 1.022; 95% CI 1.016-1.028) and cardiovascular diseases (level effect 0.586; 95% CI 0.564-0.609; slope effect 1.009; 95% CI 1.007-1.011). Greater reduction occurred in women compared to men, particularly marked on myocardial infarction (level effect 0.595; 95% CI 0.566-0.627 versus 0.532; 95% CI 0.502-0.564) and colorectal cancer (level effect 0.295; 95% CI 0.248-0.35 versus 0.19; 95% CI 0.159-0.228). Compared to men, a greater absolute reduction was observed in women for oncologic diseases, excluding sex-specific cancer, (1352; 95% CI 743-1961) and cardiovascular diseases (1268; 95% CI 946-1590).ConclusionWe confirmed a large drop in new diagnoses for time-sensitive conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. This reduction was greater for women. Our findings should alert policy-makers about the urgent need to integrate a gender perspective into the pandemic response.
| S-EPMC8523204 | biostudies-literature