COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected

Re-evaluating the gender gap: a cross-sectional analysis of accepted American Academy of Neurology annual meeting abstracts in 2020 and 2021

Background and objective

Prior studies reveal that invited speaker panels, editorial boards, authors of practice guidelines, and senior authors of published articles are disproportionately male in the neurology field. We aimed to analyze a gender gap in authorship of accepted abstracts to the American Academy of Neurology annual meetings in 2020 and 2021.

Design/methods

This is a cross-sectional study evaluating the proportions of female first and senior abstract authors in 2020 and 2021. Abstracts were reviewed manually (n = 3,211 in 2020; n = 2,178 in 2021). Data were collected regarding the gender of first and senior authors, subspecialties, and origin of research (USA, international, or corporate-affiliated). Then, we compared the percentages of female first and senior authors in the 2 years to assess for any short-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Accepted abstracts with female first and senior authors comprised 46%, 34% in 2020, and the same in 2021, without change. Female senior authors had a significantly higher proportion of female first authors than their male senior author counterparts. The analysis of subspecialties with more than 100 abstracts showed the lowest percentages of female senior authors was oncology (24.7%), sleep (25.5%), headache (28.7%), and cerebrovascular disease (29%) in 2020. Cerebrovascular disease (29%) and behavioral neurology (24.7%) had the lowest percentage of female senior authors in 2021. In the analysis of the origin of research, corporate-affiliated authors had the lowest percentages of female first (34 and 36%) and senior authors (22.6 and 27.6%).

Conclusion

The gender gap in neurology was reaffirmed in regards to female senior authorship overall and in subgroups of abstracts including cerebrovascular disease, headache, behavioral neurology, sleep, oncology, and corporate-affiliated research.

Exploring spatiotemporal effects of the driving factors on COVID-19 incidences in the contiguous United States

Since December 2019, the world has witnessed the stringent effect of an unprecedented global pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As of January 29,2021, there have been 100,819,363 confirmed cases and 2,176,159 deaths reported. Among the countries affected severely by COVID-19, the United States tops the list. Research has been conducted to discuss the causal associations between explanatory factors and COVID-19 transmission in the contiguous United States. However, most of these studies focus more on spatial associations of the estimated parameters, yet exploring the time-varying dimension in spatial econometric modeling appears to be utmost essential. This research adopts various relevant approaches to explore the potential effects of driving factors on COVID-19 counts in the contiguous United States. A total of three global spatial regression models and two local spatial regression models, the latter including geographically weighted regression (GWR) and multiscale GWR (MGWR), are performed at the county scale to take into account the scale effects. For COVID-19 cases, ethnicity, crime, and income factors are found to be the strongest covariates and explain most of the variance of the modeling estimation. For COVID-19 deaths, migration (domestic and international) and income factors play a critical role in explaining spatial differences of COVID-19 deaths across counties. Such associations also exhibit temporal variations from March to July, as supported by better performance of MGWR than GWR. Both global and local associations among the parameters vary highly over space and change across time. Therefore, time dimension should be paid more attention to in the spatial epidemiological analysis. Among the two local spatial regression models, MGWR performs more accurately, as it has slightly higher Adj. R2 values (for cases, R2 = 0.961; for deaths, R2 = 0.962), compared to GWR's Adj. R2 values (for cases, R2 = 0.954; for deaths, R2 = 0.954). To inform policy-makers at the nation and state levels, understanding the place-based characteristics of the explanatory forces and related spatial patterns of the driving factors is of paramount importance. Since it is not the first time humans are facing public health emergency, the findings of the present research on COVID-19 therefore can be used as a reference for policy designing and effective decision making.

The Differential Impact of COVID-19 on the Work Conditions of Women and Men Academics during the Lockdown

That the COVID‐19 pandemic has affected the work conditions of large segments of society is in no doubt. A growing body of journalistic accounts raised the possibility that the lockdown caused by the pandemic has affected women and men in different ways, due mostly to the traditionally gendered division of labour in society. We attempt to test this oft‐cited argument by conducting an original survey with nearly 200 academics. Specifically, we explore the extent to which the effect of the lockdown on childcare, housework and home‐office environment varies across women and men. Our results show that a number of factors are associated with the effect of the lockdown on the work conditions of academics at home, including gender, having children, perceived threat from COVID‐19 and satisfaction with the work environment. We also show that having children disproportionately affects women in terms of the amount of housework during the lockdown.