Search

ObjectivesTo chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.DesignScoping review.ParticipantsQuantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.ResultsLiterature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).ConclusionsReviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework:https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Introduction: Chronic Disease Self-Management Support (CDSMP) programmes potentially reduce morbidity, mortality and the cost of chronic illness. The Irish National Framework for the Integrated Prevention and Management of Chronic Disease embeds self-management supports as a critical component of chronic disease care. The Stanford model CDMSP was adapted for use in Ireland as the “Living Well” programme. The Living Well programme was delivered online by trained facilitators over six weeks (2.5 hours/week) to adults with chronic illness. The programme supports participants to develop the knowledge, skills and confidence required to self-manage their conditions, its symptoms and negative psychological responses effectively. Aims, Objectives, Theory or Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of the online Living Well programme delivery. Outcome data were collected via online surveys pre (T1) and immediately post (T2) the programme. Internationally validated measures of Quality of Life (QOL), health related quality of life (HRQOL), healthcare utilisation, depression, limitations, self-efficacy, and activity levels were administered. Changes in variables over time were examined using either paired samples t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank test where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.Results: Out of the 1225 potential participants in the evaluation at the time of this submission 815 T1 surveys and 456 T2 surveys were returned; 320 T1 and T2 surveys could be matched. High completion (92%) and satisfaction (94%) rates were recorded. Both overall QoL and HRQOL significantly increased. There was a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy for managing health as well as for completing an online programme to support health. Participants’ perception of support available to manage their health significantly increased. There was a significant decrease in depression. There was a significant decrease in the extent to which illness interfered in overall activities, in social activities, hobbies and work (where relevant). No significant increase in exercise activities was found; however, engagement in activities was impacted by restricted access to facilities during Covid restrictions and fear of contracting Covid-19 during lockdown. A process review examined facilitators and barriers to programme implementation. Conclusion: The high participation rate in the online sessions and the extremely high ratings of satisfaction indicate the online Living Well Programme is acceptable to participants and that they are satisfied with the support it provides. Living Well programme participants reported a range of statistically significant changes across key outcomes of depression, self-efficacy, quality of life, decreased limitations in social/role activities, and perceived satisfaction with support available. The pattern of beneficial effects of the online programme are comparable to those reported from the face-to-face CDSMP.Implications for applicability/transferability, sustainability, and limitations: In response to the Covid-19 pandemic in Ireland, the Living Well programme pivoted to deliver an online self-management support model. This yielded extremely high participation and satisfaction rates demonstrating its potential for inclusion in integrated care pathways for chronic conditions.

Introduction: The Patient Narrative Project was initiated in 2016 to position the voice of patients and service users centrally in the design and implementation of Integrated Care. This paper presents the findings from Phase Two; the piloting of a qualitative survey tool called ‘Your Voice Matters’ (YVM) to capture a high volume of patient experiences and analysing these to find out the extent to which the person centred coordinated care indicators were made real during 2017. Methods: YVM utilises the SenseMaker® software tool and is underpinned by a partnership approach between service users and providers. The framework is dynamic and can be used to provide real time feedback to inform changes at local levels. The YVM framework consists of: - An online survey that utilizes the SenseMaker® software programme - Engagement plan to maximize service user participation, knowledge and empowerment - Analysis of data by staff and service users together - Identification of key themes and actions to influence the design and delivery of services The survey was available online, in a paper copy or through an app for smartphone or tablet. Results: There were 584 responses. 52% patients/ service users and 45% carers, family/friends. 63.8% of respondents were female. A national workshop of service users and providers was held to review, analyse and interpret the data from the pilot together and identify key themes using a Quantitative Evaluation Matrix. The key issues that impact on successful implementation of integrated care were identified as: Limited joined up communication between patients and healthcare staff and between healthcare settings Limited evidence of partnership approach in healthcare Challenges in accessing services is a concern for service users Patient Experience is a driver for sustainable quality health and social care services Person-centred co-ordinated care is not yet a lived reality for patients and service users despite the rhetoric in health and social care strategy Discussions: The results from Phase 2 give a clear direction of travel for person centred integrated care and show that the approach being taken currently is attempting to address the issues raised. The results also challenge us to move more rapidly towards co-production Conclusions (comprising key findings): The journey towards person centred coordinated care has only begun and although much progress has been made, there is much more to be done and more rapidly.There is a real appetite among patients, carers and healthcare professionals to co-produce solutions. Lessons learned: Clear governance and the need for senior buy is very important. Although often stated, it is not always apparent in actions. Regular communication with key stakeholders and local buy in is key to success. Limitations: There were only 584 responses.More responses will be required to inform the design and operation of health and social care at local levels. Future research: A more detailed analysis of the outputs from Phase 2 is planned which will inform Phase 3. A collaboration involving several countries in the use of this technology would be a positive development.