Journal of women's health
-
Journal of women's health · Oct 2021
Representation by Gender of Recognition Award Recipients from Gastroenterology and Hepatology Professional Societies.
Background: Recognition awards from professional medical societies play an important role in physicians' career advancement. Our aim was to evaluate the gender representation of award recipients from gastroenterology and hepatology societies. Methods: We analyzed the lists of award recipients from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and determined the gender of these award recipients. ⋯ The proportion of women recipients varied among the societies, from 6.8% to 14.5%. Conclusions: The representation of women physician recipients of gastroenterology and hepatology society recognition awards has generally been low until most recently, when it has surpassed the proportion of women in the specialty. Because award recognition is important to career development, professional societies should have transparent processes that aim to identify and reduce various forms of bias, including gender-related bias, in all phases of award recognition.
-
Journal of women's health · Oct 2021
Biomedical Researchers' Perceptions of the NIH's Sex as a Biological Variable Policy for Animal Research: Results from a U.S. National Survey.
Background: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a policy on sex as a biological variable (SABV) in an effort to address the overrepresentation of men and male animals in biomedical research and the lack of attention to sex-based responses to medical treatments. However, questions remain regarding how U. S. biomedical researchers perceive the impact of the SABV policy on their own research and on translational science more broadly. ⋯ There were robust differences in perceptions of the SABV policy based on researchers' primary species of model organism. However, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of researchers analyzing their results by sex based on whether they had received recent NIH funding. Conclusions: While many researchers report adhering to the SABV policy requirements, more work needs to be done to ensure that the policy is being evenly applied to researchers using all types of animal models and that researchers adhere to the policy after receiving NIH funding, particularly in terms of reporting on and analyzing SABV in their study findings for publication.
-
Journal of women's health · Oct 2021
Contraceptive Care Disparities Among Sexual Orientation Identity and Racial/Ethnic Subgroups of U.S. Women: A National Probability Sample Study.
Background: Sexual minority women may use contraception for various reasons but face notable barriers to contraceptive care, including stigma and discrimination. However, studies examining sexual orientation disparities in contraceptive care have largely relied on nonprobability samples of predominately White women and may thus not be generalizable to U. S. women overall or Black and Latina women in particular. ⋯ White (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15-0.85), Black (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18-0.98), and Latina (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.09-0.53) lesbian women also had significantly lower adjusted odds of obtaining contraceptive counseling relative to White heterosexual women. Conclusions: Policies, programs, and practices that facilitate access to person-centered contraceptive care among marginalized sexual orientation identity and racial/ethnic subgroups of U. S. women are needed to promote reproductive health equity.
-
Journal of women's health · Sep 2021
Randomized Controlled TrialResearch Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. ⋯ Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.