Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

"I don't see gender": Conceptualizing a gendered system of academic publishing.

Academic experts share their ideas, as well as contribute to advancing health science by participating in publishing as an author, reviewer and editor. The academy shapes and is shaped by knowledge produced within it. As such, the production of scientific knowledge can be described as part of a socially constructed system. Like all socially constructed systems, scientific knowledge production is influenced by gender. This study investigated one layer of this system through an analysis of journal editors' understanding of if and how gender influences editorial practices in peer reviewed health science journals. The study involved two stages: 1) exploratory in-depth qualitative interviews with editors at health science journals; and 2) a nominal group technique (NGT) with experts working on gender in research, academia and the journal peer review process. Our findings indicate that some editors had not considered the impact of gender on their editorial work. Many described how they actively strive to be 'gender blind,' as this was seen as a means to be objective. This view fails to recognize how broader social structures operate to produce systemic inequities. None of the editors or publishers in this study were collecting gender or other social indicators as part of the article submission process. These findings suggest that there is room for editors and publishers to play a more active role in addressing structural inequities in academic publishing to ensure a diversity of knowledge and ideas are reflected.

Conflict and human African trypanosomiasis.

Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) has reemerged in sub-Saharan Africa as a disease of major public health importance. The success of HAT elimination in sub-Saharan Africa is subject to the feasibility of controlling, eliminating, or mitigating the determinants of incidence in affected countries. Conflict has been widely recognized and cited as a contributing factor to the resurgence of HAT in many countries, as well as to continuing HAT incidence in politically unstable and resource-poor regions. Despite extensive anecdotal and qualitative recognition of the role of conflict, there has been no quantitative research of this topic at the population level in affected African countries. We characterize the qualitative and quantitative associations between HAT incidence and conflict-related processes in HAT-affected African countries over the past 30 years. HAT and conflict-related data were collected for 35 affected countries in sub-Saharan Africa for the years 1976-2004. Descriptive and univariate inferential statistics, as well as negative binomial regression modeling, are used to assess the associations between HAT and conflict. A space-time scan statistic is used to identify significant incidence clusters. Clusters of HAT incidence over the past 30 years have predominantly coincided with periods of conflict or socio-political instability. HAT cases occurred significantly more often in countries and during years with conflict, high political terror, and internationalized civil war. The results indicate a lag period between the start of conflict events and a peak in incidence of approximately 10 years. We recommend explicit consideration and quantification of socio-political measures such as conflict and terror indices in GIS (Geographic Information Systems)-based risk assessments for HAT policy and intervention.