Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2023 Feb 15;13(2):e067771. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067771.
To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.
Scoping review.
Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.
Outcomes 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.
Literature 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%).
Reviewed 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.
Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.
绘制全球学术健康研究中性别平等的文献。
范围审查。
如果研究考察了学术机构内的性别平等，包括卫生研究人员，则符合纳入标准的定量研究包括性别平等。
与学术界中性别和其他社会身份的公平相关的结果：（1）师资队伍：大学/系部门中所有性别的代表性、学术职称或职位和薪酬；（2）服务：教学义务和行政/非教学活动；（3）招聘和招聘数据：按性别划分的申请人人数、不同职级的面试和新聘人员；（4）晋升：晋升机会和晋升到学术职级的时间；（5）学术领导：领导职位类型、领导晋升或培训机会、监督/指导机会以及对领导职位的支持；（6）学术成果或生产力：出版物和演讲的数量/类型、作者的职位、赠款或奖项的数量/价值以及知识产权所有权；（7）大学的背景因素；（8）基础设施；（9）知识和技术转化活动；（10）提供产假/陪产假/育儿假/家庭假；（11）合作活动/合作机会；（12）定性考虑：晋升、财务和支持方面的看法。
文献检索产生了 94798 条引文；筛选了 4753 篇全文文章，纳入了 562 项研究。大多数研究来自北美（462/562，82.2%）。很少有研究（27/562，4.8%）报告种族，更少的研究报告性别（大多数研究中男女互换）除了男性/女性（11/562，2.0%）。只有一项研究提供了关于宗教的数据。没有报告其他进展加指标。共报告了 2996 项结果，其中大多数研究都检查了学术产出（371/562，66.0%）。
综述文献表明，缺乏分析方法，这些方法除了男性和女性之外，还考虑了性别以外的二元类别，以及其他社会身份（种族、宗教、社会资本和残疾）和交叉视角，审查多个社会身份的相互联系，以了解歧视和劣势。所有这些都是制定促进性别平等战略的必要条件。
开放科学框架：https://osf.io/8wk7e/。
