Search

Although women's representation in STEM fields and occupations has increased, science and math continue to be stereotyped as male domains. This paper links psychological and sociological explanations for gendered disparities in STEM by examining the relationship between the local "micro-situational" female learning environment and the gender gap in academic self-concept in math and science. We applied hybrid models to TIMSS 2015 data comprised of a pseudo-panel of repeated measures for individual student and peer achievement, academic self-concept, utility value, and interest-enjoyment value in math/science (at age 14). We analyzed data from three countries, including a subsample of students who were taught by the same teacher in both math and science, thus eliminating unobserved teacher heterogeneity. Results indicate that female peer climate in the classroom is important for understanding how girls' self-concept in math/science is formed, even though it was unrelated to the gender gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain is a frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder, but few studies have compared data between countries. Objectives: Examine prevalence, severity, and sick leave and explore potential risk factors associated with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in Italian women and compare the results to a similar study in Norway, utilizing the same questionnaire. Design: Cross-sectional Methods: Italian (n = 481) and Norwegian women (n = 435) were allocated from two public hospitals in Rome (Fatebenefratelli San Giovanni Calibita-Isola Tiberina) and Oslo (Oslo University Hospital), as well as four antenatal clinics in Modena (Italy). The questionnaire was completed between gestation weeks 32 and 36, addressing women's experiences of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain and sick leave in current week, and retrospectively for prepregnancy, first and second trimesters. Results: In Italy and Norway, 39% and 57% of pregnant women reported pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, respectively, with 11% and 25% experiencing severe pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain. Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain was associated with sick leave in Norway (p < 0.01), but not in Italy (p = 0.66) at late gestation. In both countries, women with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain versus those with no pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain were more likely to be multiparous (Italy: 40% versus 31%, p = 0.06 and Norway: 53% versus 38%, p < 0.01), and have gestational weight gain above guidelines (Italy: 21% versus 13%, p = 0.02% and Norway: 27% versus 14%, p < 0.01) and previous experience of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (Italy: 15% versus 2%, p < 0.01 and Norway: 31% versus 4%, p < 0.01). Maternal exercise (⩾2 times weekly) was associated with less pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (Italy: odds ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval = 0.11–1.0, p = 0.05 and Norway: odds ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.29–1.0, p = 0.06). Conclusion: We observed high rates of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in Italy and Norway, with Norwegian women reporting the highest prevalence and severity level. While both countries had similar rates of sick leave in late gestation, an association between pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain and sick leave was observed among Norwegian women only. Health care providers should be proactive in addressing pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain through open communication and seeking input from pregnant individuals. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the current evidence on effective treatments remains limited and inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some mortality statistics are misleading when comparing between countries due to varying age distributions in their populations. In order to adjust for these differences, age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) are often produced. ASMRs allow for comparisons between countries as if both had the same standardised population. We examined whether the updating of the standard population for Europe affected the description of the relative burden between countries in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality across the continent. Methods: Mortality and population data were obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) mortality database. ASMRs were calculated using the direct method and two European Standard Populations (ESP): 1976 ESP and 2013 ESP. We investigated differences in ASMR76 (calculated using 1976 ESP) and ASMR13 (calculated using 2013 ESP), changes in rankings of countries between the two ASMRs and differences in trends in CVD mortality in each country for the two ASMRs. Results: CVD rates calculated using the 1976 ESP were on average half the size of rates calculated using the 2013 ESP. Spearman's rank coefficient showed that the ranks of countries by ASMRs calculated using the two ESPs were different for both sexes. Joinpoint analyses showed no difference in the direction of trend between ASMR76 and ASMR13 although differences in the magnitude of the change were found in some countries. Conclusion: ASMRs are commonly used in studying the epidemiology of a disease. It is crucial that policy makers understand the effect of changes in standard populations on these rates. This includes how populations with different age distributions compare to each other. Similar effects may be seen in other diseases that are also more prevalent in older age groups, such as cancer and dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]