scholarly journals Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. e0239589
Author(s):  
Lorna R. Henderson ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Pavel V. Ovseiko ◽  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Alastair M. Buchan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Equity ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Research Centre

scholarly journals A survey to explore new markers of achievement to assess and monitor gender equity in an NIHR Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Pavel V Ovseiko ◽  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Alastair M Buchan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Leadership Development ◽  
Gender Equity ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Senior Leadership ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Underrepresentation Of Women

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe underrepresentation of women in academic medicine at senior level and in leadership positions is well documented. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) announced that eligibility for funding for Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) required at least Silver award status of the Athena SWAN Charter. However, the evidence base for monitoring gender equity (GE) in BRCs is underdeveloped.MethodsAn exploratory online survey distributed to an entire population of NIHR Oxford BRC affiliates (N=683) who ranked the importance of 13 markers of GE on a five point Likert scale. Data were summarised using frequencies and descriptive statistics. Interrelationships between the markers and underlying latent dimensions (factors) were determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Thematic analysis was used to analyse open-ended comments.ResultsThe response rate was 36% (243 respondents). Respondents were more frequently female (55%, n=133), aged 41-50 years (33%, n=81), investigators (33%, n=81) and had been affiliated with the BRC for 2-7 years (39.5%, n=96). Participants ranked BRC senior leadership roles and organisational policies on gender equity, as very important, 58% (n=141) and 57% (n=139) respectively. The top two markers ranked as very important by female participants were organisational policies (64.7%, n=86/133) and recruitment and retention (60.9%, n=81/133), whereas male participants ranked leadership development (52.1%, n=50/96) and BRC senior leadership roles (50%, n=48/96) as being very important. The factor analyses showed two distinct latent dimensions: organisational markers and individual markers of GE in BRCs. Open ended comments suggested three key areas of actions: monitoring and benchmarking, organisational support for those with childcare responsibilities, and leadership and Institutional support for GE.ConclusionsThe findings suggest a two-factor model of markers of achievement for GE with organisational and individual dimensions. Implementation and sustainability of gender equity requires commitment at senior leadership and organisational policy level.

scholarly journals Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e037935
Author(s):  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Maria Julia Milano ◽  
Laurel D Edmunds ◽  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Gender Equity ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Gender Parity ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Scientific Authorship

ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

scholarly journals Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC): A qualitative study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Pavel V Ovseiko ◽  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou
Keyword(s):  
Gender Equity ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Maternity Leave ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Women In Science ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Athena Swan

ABSTRACT Background The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organisations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognised by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of womens advancement and leadership. Objectives To explore both women's and men's perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. Methods Thematic analysis of data from two discrete research projects: 53 GE survey respondents free text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. Results Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena Swan Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt current markers of achievement were not equitable to women as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC specific organisational policies and metrics are required to monitor and catalyse GE. Conclusions Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should take into account contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complimented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion.

scholarly journals A retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a biomedical research centre

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Maria Julia Milano ◽  
Laurel D Edmunds ◽  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Equity ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
List Type ◽  
Gender Parity ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Scientific Authorship ◽  
Joint Authorship

ABSTRACTObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignA retrospective descriptive study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017.Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ 2 91.291, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research.This study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England.The generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers.Using secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission.

scholarly journals P074 Insights into creating a virtual patient and public involvement initiative

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Hawkins ◽  
Tracy Hyndman ◽  
Raj Amarnani ◽  
James Kimpton ◽  
Su-Ann Yeoh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
London Hospital ◽  
University College ◽  
University College London

Abstract Background/Aims  Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives are important to ensure patient-centered research. However, traditional focus groups can present challenges including the recruitment and retention of patient partners. Additional challenges to patient involvement have also arisen due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The University College London (UCL) Patient Partners in Rheumatology Research initiative has been developed to explore novel ways to boost patient involvement and foster an active collaboration between basic researchers and patient partners. Methods  Two online surveys were designed to obtain information with regards to the expectations and practicalities of this initiative. One survey was sent to patients who had registered an interest in being patient partners and the other survey to rheumatology researchers at UCL and University College London Hospital (UCLH). Results  We received responses from 25 researchers and 21 patients. The majority of patients who responded (71%) had not previously been involved in PPI. Most of the researchers (84%) had previously utilised PPI, however 20% of those had some difficulty accessing it. Most patients (86%) were interested in becoming a patient partner. Amongst those with reservations, one stated that “I don't think I have the qualifications to be involved with scientists and researchers”. Over half of patients (52%) were happy to participate in PPI more than five times a year and most researchers (84%) expressed that five times a year was acceptable. Patients favoured (52%) conducting PPI meetings after office hours (5-8pm) during the working week. Due to social restrictions because of COVID-19, we asked both patients and researchers their preferred mode of meeting. Both groups favoured a mixed (virtual and face to face) meeting arrangement (81% for patients and 68% for researchers). A third of patients (38%) expressed that they would need technical assistance accessing a virtual meeting. Almost all patients (95%) were happy to contribute to lay summary reviews remotely via email. Conclusion  Based on the insights gained from the survey results, our PPI initiative meetings will be hosted in a hybrid virtual/face to face format. These will be held at a time and frequency that is convenient for the patient partners to increase participation across wider demographics. This survey has highlighted that we have to be mindful of certain patient perceptions of PPI which creates a barrier to patient involvement and that some individuals may require further support in accessing virtual meetings. By designing a PPI initiative that creatively addressed the needs of both the researchers and patient partners we hope to create a platform for productive dialogue and collaboration to ensure patient-centred research, despite the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosure  E. Hawkins: Other; funded by National Institute of Health Research, Clinical Research Network. T. Hyndman: None. R. Amarnani: None. J. Kimpton: None. S. Yeoh: Other; University College London Hospital National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Royal College of Physicians and Rosetrees Trust. M. Castelino: Other; University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

scholarly journals A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou ◽  
Laurence A. Brown ◽  
Helen McShane ◽  
Keith M. Channon ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Collaboration Networks ◽  
Research Publications

Abstract Background The evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Bibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017. Results Analysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean  = 18.03, SD  = 3.63, maximum  = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n  = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean  = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean  = 1.83) for the analysed publications. Conclusions The NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document