Kendrick Abby, Krishnan Nithya, Baharani Jyoti, Tuttle Janet, Szczepura Ala
Department of Renal, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
Research Centre for Healthcare and Communities, Coventry University - Coventry Campus, Coventry, UK.
BMJ Open. 2025 Feb 16;15(2):e094549. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094549.
To examine the authorship and content of systematic reviews (SRs) of biases experienced by medical professionals through a gender lens.
Review of SRs.
We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception. Searches were conducted in May 2022 and updated in October 2023.
Reviews of studies reporting biases experienced by hospital physicians at any stage of their careers and in any country. Reviews were included if they used systematic methods to search the literature and synthesise the data. Non-English language publications were excluded.
The main theme of each eligible review was identified through qualitative thematic analysis. We used NamSor to determine the first/last authors' gender and computed the proportion of female authors for each review theme.
56 articles were included in the review. These covered 12 themes related to gender, race and ethnicity bias experienced by physicians at any stage of their careers. The overall proportion of female authors was 70% for first authors and 51% for last authors. However, the gender of authors by theme varied widely. Female authors dominated reviews of research on discrimination and motherhood, while male authors dominated reviews on burnout, mental health and earnings. Only six reviews were identified that included race and ethnicity; 9 out of the 12 first and last authors were female.
Understanding the potential for a gendered evidence base on biases experienced by hospital physicians is important. Our findings highlight apparent differences in the issues being prioritised internationally by male and female authors, and a lack of evidence on interventions to tackle biases. Going forward, a more collaborative and comprehensive framework is required to develop an evidence base that is fit for purpose. By providing a point of reference, the present study can help this future development.
CRD42021259409; Pre-results.
从性别视角审视医学专业人员所经历偏见的系统评价(SRs)的作者情况和内容。
对系统评价进行综述。
从数据库建立起就开始检索PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO和CINAHL。检索于2022年5月进行,并于2023年10月更新。
对报告医院医生在其职业生涯任何阶段、任何国家所经历偏见的研究进行的综述。如果综述使用系统方法检索文献并综合数据,则纳入。排除非英语语言出版物。
通过定性主题分析确定每项合格综述的主要主题。我们使用NamSor确定第一/最后作者的性别,并计算每个综述主题的女性作者比例。
该综述纳入了56篇文章。这些文章涵盖了与医生在职业生涯任何阶段所经历的性别、种族和民族偏见相关的12个主题。第一作者的女性作者总体比例为70%,最后作者的女性作者总体比例为51%。然而,各主题的作者性别差异很大。女性作者主导了关于歧视和母亲身份的研究综述,而男性作者主导了关于职业倦怠、心理健康和收入的综述。仅识别出6篇包含种族和民族内容的综述;12位第一和最后作者中有9位是女性。
了解基于医院医生所经历偏见的性别化证据基础的可能性很重要。我们的研究结果凸显了男性和女性作者在国际上优先考虑的问题上存在明显差异,以及缺乏应对偏见干预措施的证据。展望未来,需要一个更具协作性和综合性的框架来建立一个适用的证据基础。通过提供一个参考点,本研究可以帮助推动这一未来发展。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42021259409;预结果。