Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

PARTICIPANTS

Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Gender equity in health research publishing in Africa

Introduction

Women researchers find it more difficult to publish in academic journals than men, an inequity that affects women’s careers and was exacerbated during the pandemic, particularly for women in low-income and middle-income countries. We measured publishing by sub-Saharan African (SSA) women in prestigious authorship positions (first or last author, or single author) during the time frame 2014–2016. We also examined policies and practices at journals publishing high rates of women scientists from sub-Saharan Africa, to identify potential structural enablers affecting these women in publishing.

Methods

The study used Namsor V.2, an application programming interface, to conduct a secondary analysis of a bibliometric database. We also analysed policies and practices of ten journals with the highest number of SSA women publishing in first authorship positions.

Results

Based on regional analyses, the greatest magnitude of authorship inequity is in papers from sub-Saharan Africa, where men comprised 61% of first authors, 65% of last authors and 66% of single authors. Women from South Africa and Nigeria had greater success in publishing than those from other SSA countries, though women represented at least 20% of last authors in 25 SSA countries. The journals that published the most SSA women as prominent authors are journals based in SSA. Journals with overwhelmingly male leadership are also among those publishing the highest number of SSA women.

Conclusion

Women scholars in SSA face substantial gender inequities in publishing in prestigious authorship positions in academic journals, though there is a cadre of women research leaders across the region. Journals in SSA are important for local women scholars and the inequities SSA women researchers face are not necessarily attributable to gender discrepancy in journals’ editorial leadership.

Nursing knowledge of people with paresis of voluntary muscles: a living scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to continuously map the nursing knowledge about people with paresis of voluntary muscles in any context of care.

INTRODUCTION

Muscle paresis is a condition that significantly impacts quality of life. Nurses have a crucial role in managing this condition, particularly paresis of voluntary movement muscles. However, nursing knowledge about patients with paresis of voluntary muscles is dispersed, hampering the integration of evidence within the structure of information systems. Mapping how the nursing process components are identified is the first step in creating a Nursing Clinical Information Model for this condition, capable of integrating evidence into information systems.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will consider studies focusing on the nursing process regarding people with paresis of voluntary muscles in all care contexts. The review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study designs, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, dissertations, and theses.

METHODS

The review process will follow JBI's scoping review guidance, as well as the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews. Screening of new literature will be performed regularly, with the review being updated according to new findings. The search strategy will map published and unpublished studies. The databases to be searched will include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, JBI Evidence Synthesis , and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches for unpublished studies will include OpenGrey and Repositorios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal. Studies published in English and Portuguese from 1975 will be considered for inclusion.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/d7c9g/.

Nursing knowledge on skin ulcer healing: a living scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to continuously map the nursing knowledge on skin ulcer healing in any context of care.

INTRODUCTION

Chronic wounds are an increasing concern for society and health care providers. Pressure ulcers and venous ulcers, among others, have devastating effects on morbidity and quality of life and require a systematic approach. The nursing process is an important method that allows a better organization and overall care quality for a systematic and continuous professional approach to nursing management of skin ulcers. The integration of this nursing knowledge in informatics systems creates an opportunity to embed decision-support models in clinical activity, promoting evidence-based practice.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will consider articles that focus on nursing data, diagnosis, interventions, and outcomes focused on the person with skin ulcers in all contexts of care. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs as well as systematic reviews and dissertations.

METHODS

JBI's scoping review guidance, as well as the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews, will be followed to meet the review's objective. Screening of new literature will be performed regularly, with the review being updated according to new findings. The search strategy will map published and unpublished studies. The databases to be searched include: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), JBI Library of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches for unpublished studies will include OpenGrey and Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal. Studies published in English and Portuguese since 2010 will be considered for inclusion.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/f6s4e/.