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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]