Search

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) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized 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 women's advancement and leadership. 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 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 that 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 organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE., Conclusions: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The objective was to identify translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training. This cross-sectional study involved an online questionnaire survey. The research population comprised a convenience sample of translational researchers and support staff (N = 798) affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 were men (40%). The respondents were mainly research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), and research nurses and midwives (16%). Many of the respondents had attended at least one training course in the last year (68%). Training in statistics and data analysis was the most common training received (20%). Leadership training was the most wanted training (25%). Morning was the most preferred time of training (60%). Half a day was the ideal duration of a training course (41%). The main teaching hospital site was the most preferred location of training (46%). An interactive workshop was the most favored delivery style of training (52%). Most common barriers to attending training were the lack of time (31%), work (21%) and clinical commitments (19%), and family and childcare responsibilities (14%). Some differences in training needs, preferences, and barriers were found by gender and role, though these were not statistically significant. Translational researchers want short, easily accessible, and interactive training sessions during the working day. The training needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training need to be considered while developing inclusive training programs in biomedical research settings., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Objective: Scientific 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., Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study., Setting: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)., Data: Data 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 Measures: Gender 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., Results: Publications 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., Conclusions: Although 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VK is Chief Operating Officer and LRH is Clinical Research Manager at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). AMB is a senior medical science advisor and co-founder of Brainomix, a company that develops electronic ASPECTS (e-ASPECTS), an automated method to evaluate ASPECTS in stroke patients. MJM, LDE and PVO were funded by STARBIOS2 and the NIHR Oxford BRC. PVO is a member of the NIHR Advisory Group on Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, a member of the European Association of Science Editors Gender Policy Committee, and a member of the Athena SWAN Self-Assessment Team of the Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The underrepresentation of women in academic medicine at senior level and in leadership positions is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRC), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organisations and universities, conduct world class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the UK. Since 2011 BRCs are required to demonstrate significant progress in gender equity (GE) to be eligible to apply for funding. However, the evidence base for monitoring GE specifically in BRC settings is underdeveloped. This is the first survey tool designed to rank and identify new GE markers specific to the NIHR BRCs., Methods: An online survey distributed to senior leadership, clinical and non-clinical researchers, trainees, administrative and other professionals affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC (N = 683). Participants ranked 13 markers of GE on a five point Likert scale by importance. Data were summarised using frequencies and descriptive statistics. Interrelationships between markers and underlying latent dimensions (factors) were determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses., Results: The 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) affiliated to the BRC for 2-7 years (39.5%, n = 96). Overall participants ranked 'BRC senior leadership roles' and 'organisational policies on gender equity', to be the most important markers of GE. 58% (n = 141) and 57% (n = 139) respectively. Female participants ranked 'organisational policies' (64.7%, n = 86/133) and 'recruitment and retention' (60.9%, n = 81/133) most highly, whereas male participants ranked 'leadership development' (52.1%, n = 50/96) and 'BRC senior leadership roles' (50%, n = 48/96) as most important. Factor analyses identified two distinct latent dimensions: "organisational markers" and "individual markers" of GE in BRCs., Conclusions: A two-factor model of markers of achievement for GE with "organisational" and "individual" dimensions was identified. Implementation and sustainability of gender equity requires commitment at senior leadership and organisational policy level., Competing Interests: HMcS is Director of the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, VK is Chief Operating Officer of the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, LRH is Clinical Research Manager, SGSS is Senior Research Fellow. AMB was the founding Director of the NIHR Oxford BRC. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Given the complex mix of structural, cultural and institutional factors that produce barriers for women in science, an equally complex intervention is required to understand and address them. The Athena SWAN Award Scheme for Gender Equality has become a widespread means to address barriers for women's advancement and leadership in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, the United States of America and Canada, while the European Commission is exploring the introduction of a similar award scheme across Europe., Methods: This study analyses the design and implementation of 16 departmental Athena SWAN Silver Action Plans in Medical Sciences at one of the world's leading universities in Oxford, United Kingdom. Data pertaining to the design and implementation of gender equality interventions were extracted from the action plans, analysed thematically, coded using categories from the 2015 Athena SWAN Charter Awards Handbook and synthesised against a typology of gender equality interventions in the European Research Area. The results were further analysed against the complexity research literature framework, where research organisations are perceived as dynamic systems that adapt, interact and co-evolve with other systems., Results: Athena SWAN is a complex contextually embedded system of action planning within the context of universities. It depends on a multitude of contextual variables that relate in complex, non-linear ways and dynamically adapt to constantly moving targets and new emergent conditions. Athena SWAN Silver Action Plans conform to the key considerations of complexity - (1) multiple actions and areas of intervention with a focus on the complex system being embedded in local dynamics, (2) the non-linearity of interventions and the constantly emerging conditions, and (3) impact in terms of contribution to change, improved conditions to foster change and the increased probability that change can occur., Conclusions: To enact effective sustainable structural and cultural change for gender equality, it is necessary to acknowledge and operationalise complexity as a frame of reference. Athena SWAN is the single most comprehensive and systemic gender equality scheme in Europe. It can be further strengthened by promoting the integration of sex and gender analysis in research and education. Gender equality policies in the wider European Research Area can benefit from exploring Athena SWAN's contextually embedded systemic approach to dynamic action planning and inclusive focus on all genders and categories of staff and students.