A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Health Research Policy and Systems

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Ovseiko, Pavel V ^a   Greenhalgh, Trisha ^b   Adam, Paula ^c   Grant, Jonathan ^d   Hinrichs Krapels, Saba ^d   Graham, Kathryn E ^e   Valentine, Pamela A ^e   Sued, Omar ^f   Boukhris, Omar F ^g   Al Olaqi, Nada M ^h   Al Rahbi, Idrees S ⁱ   Dowd, Anne Maree ^j   Bice, Sara ^k   Heiden, Tamika L ^l,m   Fischer, Michael D ^n,o   Dopson, Sue ^o   Norton, Robyn ^a,p   Pollitt, Alexandra ^d   Wooding, Steven ^q   Balling, Gert V ^r   Jakobsen, Ulla ^s   Kuhlmann, Ellen ^t,u   Klinge, Ineke ^v   Pololi, Linda H ^w   Jagsi, Reshma ^x   Smith, Helen Lawton ^y   Etzkowitz, Henry ^y,z   Nielsen, Mathias W ^aa   Carrion, Carme ^c,ab   Solans Domènech, Maite ^c   Vizcaino, Esther ^c   Naing, Lin ^ac   Cheok, Quentin H N ^ac   Eckelmann, Baerbel ^ad   Simuyemba, Moses C ^ae   Msiska, Temwa ^af   Declich, Giovanna ^ag   Edmunds, Laurel D ^a   Kiparoglou, Vasiliki ^ah,ai   Buchan, Alison M J ^aj   Williamson, Catherine ^ak   Lord, Graham M ^ak   Channon, Keith M ^a,ah,ai   Surender, Rebecca ^al,am   Buchan, Alastair M ^a,ah,ai   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c Agency for Healthcare Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS)   (Spain)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e Alberta Innovates Bio Solutions   (Canada)

^f FUNDACIÓN HUÉSPED   (Argentina)

^g Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF)   (Qatar)

^h QATAR FOUNDATION   (Qatar)

ⁱ THE RESEARCH COUNCIL   (Oman)

^j CSIRO   (Australia)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^l UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^m Knowledge Translation Australia Pty Ltd   (Australia)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^o UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^p UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^q RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^r Novo Nordisk Foundation   (Denmark)

^s H LUNDBECK A S   (Denmark)

^t GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^u KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^v EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

^w BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^x UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^y UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^z International Triple Helix Institute   (United States)

^aa STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^ab UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^ac UNIVERSITI BRUNEI DARUSSALAM   (Brunei Darussalam)

^ad Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^ae UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA   (Zambia)

^af UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI   (Malawi)

^ag Assembly of Women for Development and the Struggle against Social Exclusion (ASDO)   (Italy)

^ah CHURCHILL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^ai JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^aj UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^ak GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^al UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^am RHODES UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

more..

Author keywords

Athena SWAN; Call for action; Gender; Health research; Path dependency; Research impact assessment; Science policy

Indexed keywords

AFRICA; ASIA; EUROPE; FUNDING; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHYSICIAN; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; SWAN; THEORETICAL MODEL; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MALE; POLICY; SCIENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXISM; WESTERN HEMISPHERE;

AFRICA; AMERICAS; ASIA; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EUROPE; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; POLICY; SCIENCE; SEX FACTORS; SEXISM;

EID: 84978682975     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14784505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z     Document Type: Note

References (101)

1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156-65.
2. Klinge I. Bringing gender expertise to biomedical and health-related research. Gend Med. 2007;4 Suppl 2:S59-63.
3. Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, Greenhalgh T, Frith P, Roberts NW, et al. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet. 2016;pii: S0140-6736(15)01091-0. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0. Ahead of print.
4. Pololi LH, Jones SJ. Women faculty: an analysis of their experiences in academic medicine and their coping strategies. Gend Med. 2010;7(5):438-50.
5. Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dottolo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(2):201-7.
6. Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):565-72.
7. Curno MJ, Rossi S, Hodges-Mameletzis I, Johnston R, Price MA, Heidari S. A systematic review of the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in HIV research: from clinical studies of antiretrovirals and vaccines to cure strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):181-8.
8. Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Amarnath S, Jankovic A, Sheets N, Ubel PA. Under-representation of women in high-impact published clinical cancer research. Cancer. 2009;115(14):3293-301.
9. Grant J, Burden S, Breen G. No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature. 1997;390(6659):438.
10. Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Atun R. Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003362.
11. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997;387(6631):341-3.
12. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr. 2007;1(3):226-38.
13. Marsh HW, Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D, O'Mara A. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(3):1290-326.
14. Turner S, Davidson P, Stanton L, Cawdeary V. Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:54.
15. Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex differences in institutional support for junior biomedical researchers. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1175-7.
16. Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(11):804-11.
17. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008;322(5907):1472-4.
18. van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12349-53.
19. Vydareny KH, Waldrop SM, Jackson VP, Manaster BJ, Nazarian GK, Reich CA, et al. Career advancement of men and women in academic radiology: is the playing field level? Acad Radiol. 2000;7(7):493-501.
20. Noblelprize.org. All Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/. Accessed 1 April 2016.
21. Bhattacharyya N, Shapiro NL. Increased female authorship in otolaryngology over the past three decades. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(3 Pt 1):358-61.
22. Amering M, Schrank B, Sibitz I. The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):946-52.
23. Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, Henault LE, Chang Y, Starr R, et al. The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):281-7.
24. Sidhu R, Rajashekhar P, Lavin VL, Parry J, Attwood J, Holdcroft A, et al. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. J R Soc Med. 2009;102(8):337-42.
25. Piper CL, Scheel JR, Lee CI, Forman HP. Gender trends in radiology authorship: a 35-year analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(1):3-7.
26. Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847.
27. Sen G, Östlin P, George A. Unequal, unfair, ineffective and inefficient gender inequity in health: why it exists and how we can change it. Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/csdh_media/wgekn_final_report_07.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
28. Kuhlmann E, Annandale E. Gender and healthcare policy. In: Kuhlmann E, Blank RH, Bourgeault IL, Wendt C, editors. The Palgrave international handbook of healthcare policy and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 578-96.
29. Schiebinger L, Klinge I, Sánchez de Madariaga I, Paik HY, Schraudner M, Stefanick M. Gendered innovations in science, health & medicine, engineering, and environment. http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/. Accessed 1 April 2016.
30. Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(38):iii-iv. ix-x, 1-152.
31. Johnson PA, Fitzgerald T, Salganicoff A, Wood SF, Goldstein JM. Sex-specific medical research: why women's health can't wait. A Report of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women's Health & Gender Biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital. http://www.brighamandwomens.org/Departments_and_Services/womenshealth/ConnorsCenter/Policy/ConnorsReportFINAL.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
32. Healy B. The Yentl syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):274-6.
33. Buitendijk S, Maes K. Gendered research and innovation: integrating sex and gender analysis into the research process. http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP18_Gendered_research_and_innovation_final.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
34. Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: the advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
35. Ley TJ, Rosenberg LE. The physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005: build it, and they will come. JAMA. 2005;294(11):1343-51.
36. Puljak L, Kojundzic SL, Sapunar D. Gender and academic medicine: a good pipeline of women graduates is not advancing. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(3):273-8.
37. Sexton KW, Hocking KM, Wise E, Osgood MJ, Cheung-Flynn J, Komalavilas P, et al. Women in academic surgery: the pipeline is busted. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(1):84-90.
38. Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Neuschatz M, Uzzi B, Alonzo J. The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science. 1994;266(5182):51-4.
39. Commission of the European Communities. Women in science: the gender dimension as a leverage for reforming science. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2001.
40. Wilsford D. Path dependency, or why history makes it difficult but not impossible to reform health care systems in a big way. J Public Policy. 1994;14(3):251-83.
41. Alexander AC, Welzel C. Empowering women: four theories tested on four different aspects of gender equality. Chicago: Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association; 2007. http://www.democracy.uci.edu/files/docs/conferences/grad/alexander.pdf.
42. Schiebinger L, editor. Women and gender in science and technology. London: Routledge 2014.
43. Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993;23(2):325-41.
44. Holdcroft A. Gender bias in research: how does it affect evidence based medicine? J R Soc Med. 2007;100(1):2-3.
45. Lagro-Janssen T. Sex, gender and health: developments in medical research. In: Kuhlmann E, Annandale E, editors. The Palgrave handbook of gender and healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. p. 439-54.
46. Barrett-Connor E. Gender differences and disparities in all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality: epidemiological aspects. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;27(4):481-500.
47. Gahagan J, Gray K, Whynacht A. Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:12.
48. Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(4):569-91.
49. Smith-Doerr L. Women's work: gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2004.
50. Marchant A, Bhattacharya A, Carnes M. Can the language of tenure criteria influence women's academic advancement? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(7):998-1003.
51. Van den Brink M. Scouting for talent: appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(12):2033-40.
52. de Melo-Martin I. Patenting and the gender gap: should women be encouraged to patent more? Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):491-504.
53. Lawton Smith H, Etzkowitz H, Meschitti V, Poulovassilis A. Female academic entrepreneurship and commercialisation: reviewing the evidence and identifying the challenges. In: Henry C, Nelson T, Lewis K, editors. The Routledge companion to global female entrepreneurship. London: Routledge 2017.
54. Fox G, Schwartz A, Hart KM. Work-family balance and academic advancement in medical schools. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(3):227-34.
55. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (U.S.). Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2007.
56. Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7-8):509-14.
57. Nielsen MW. Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes. Sci Publ Policy. 2015: 10.1093/scipol/scv1052.
58. Husu L. Gender discrimination in the promised land of gender equality. High Educ Eur. 2000;25(2):221-8.
59. Harding SG. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1986.
60. Longino HE. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.
61. Harding SG. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1991.
62. Nelson LH, Nelson J, editors. Feminism, science and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1996.
63. Kostoff RN. Research impact assessment. Principles and applications to proposed, ongoing, and completed projects. Invest Radiol. 1994;29(9):864-9.
64. Fealing KH, Lane JI, Marburger JHI, Shipp SS, editors. The science of science policy: a handbook. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2011.
65. Banzi R, Moja L, Pistotti V, Facchini A, Liberati A. Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:26. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-26.
66. Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.
67. Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html. Accessed 1 April 2016.
68. Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:18.
69. Morgan Jones M, Grant J. Making the grade: methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact. In: Dean A, Wykes M, Stevens H, editors. 7 essays on impact. DESCRIBE project report for JISC. Exeter: University of Exeter; 2013. p. 25-43.
70. Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011;32(2):199-226.
71. Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):759-67.
72. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Kovalerchik O, Baredes S, Kalyoussef E, Chandrasekhar SS. Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):77-83.
73. Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013;504(7479):211-3.
74. McMillan GS. Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry. Scientometrics. 2009;80(3):683-91.
75. Altmetric LLP. About altmetrics: an introduction to altmetrics and how they can be used. https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/. Accessed 1 April 2016.
76. Bar-Ilan J, van der Weiden I. Altmetric gender bias? An exploratory study. Int J Comput Sci. 2015;4(1):16-22.
77. Van der Weijden ICM, Zahedi Z, Must Ü, Meijer I. Gender differences in societal orientation and output of individual scientists. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; Leiden: Universiteit Leiden; 3-5 September 2014. p. 680-6.
78. Oertelt-Prigione S, Parol R, Krohn S, Preissner R, Regitz-Zagrosek V. Analysis of sex and gender-specific research reveals a common increase in publications and marked differences between disciplines. BMC Med. 2010;8:70.
79. Ovseiko PV, Edmunds LD, Pololi LH, Greenhalgh T, Kiparoglou V, Henderson LR, et al. Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009022.
80. King's College London, Digital Science. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: an initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/Analysis,of,REF,impact/Analysis_of_REF_impact.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
81. Australian Research Council. Gender equality in research: ARC gender equality action plan 2015-16. http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/filedepot/Public/Policy%20&%20Strategy/Gender%20Equality/ARC_Gender_Equality_Action%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
82. Johnson J, Sharman Z, Vissandjee B, Stewart DE. Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact? PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99900.
83. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Sex, gender and health research guide: a tool for CIHR applicants. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32019.html. Accessed 1 April 2016.
84. National Institutes of Health. New supplemental awards apply sex and gender lens to NIH-funded research. http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-supplemental-awards-apply-sex-gender-lens-nih-funded-research. Accessed 1 April 2016.
85. European Commission. Gender equality in Horizon 2020. Version 1.0. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/gender/h2020-hi-guide-gender_en.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016
86. Equality Challenge Unit. GENDER-NET analysis report: award schemes, gender equality and structural change. London: Equality Challenge Unit; 2015.
87. Smith KA, Arlotta P. Watt FM; Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering Working Group, Solomon SL. Seven actionable strategies for advancing women in science, engineering, and medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(3):221-4.
88. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(43):13201-6.
89. McCracken DM. Winning the talent war for women. Sometimes it takes a revolution. Harv Bus Rev. 2000;78(6):159-60. 162, 164-157.
90. Davidson S. CSIRO diversity and inclusion plan 2012-15. Brisbane: CSIRO; 2013.
91. Whelan J, Wood R. Targets and quotas for women in leadership: a global review of policy, practice, and psychological research. https://cel.edu.au/our-research/targets-and-quotas-for-women-in-leadership. Accessed 1 April 2016.
92. Fischer MD, Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Bennett C, Ferlie E, Ledger J, et al. Knowledge leadership: mobilizing management research by becoming the knowledge object. Hum Relat. 2016;69(7):1563-85. doi: 10.1177/0018726715619686.
93. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2410-7.
94. Wright AL, Ryan K, St Germain P, Schwindt L, Sager R, Reed KL. Compensation in academic medicine: progress toward gender equity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1398-402.
95. Equality Challenge Unit. Athena SWAN members. http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/athena-swan-members/. Accessed 1 April 2016.
96. European Commission. Gender impact assessment of the specific programmes of the Fifth Framework Programme - an overview. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/science-society/docs/women_gender_impact_fp5_en.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
97. European Commission. Monitoring progress towards gender equality in the 6th Framework Programme - synthesis report. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/gender-monitoring-studies-synthesis-report_en.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2016.
98. Eloy JA, Svider P, Chandrasekhar SS, Husain Q, Mauro KM, Setzen M, et al. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(2):215-22.
99. Elsevier Analytical Services. Mapping gender in the German research arena. https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/gender-2015. Accessed 1 April 2016.
100. Cydulka RK, D'Onofrio G, Schneider S, Emerman CL, Sullivan LM. Women in academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(9):999-1007.
101. Oakley A. Gender, methodology and people's ways of knowing: some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology. 1998;32(4):707-31.