NIHR Race Equality Framework: development of a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement.

BACKGROUND: While there has been a long recognition of the importance of race equality in health and care research, there is a lack of sustained action among research funding and research performing organisations to address racial equality in public involvement. This paper describes how the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) convened a Race Equality Public Action Group (REPAG), which co-developed with public contributors and stakeholders a Race Equality Framework - a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. METHODS: The REPAG, through meetings and discussions, defined the focus of the Framework, and developed an initial draft of the Framework. Public contributors identified the need for broader consultation with other public members. Three community consultation events with a total of 59 members of Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held to seek their views on health and care research generally and on the draft Framework specifically. The draft Framework was modified and piloted among 16 organisations delivering health and care research. Following feedback from the pilot, the Framework was modified and prepared for publication. RESULTS: The Framework is designed as a self-assessment tool comprised of 50 questions pertaining to five domains of organisational activity: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions were co-designed with REPAG public members and provide key concepts and elements of good practice that organisations should consider and address on their path to achieving racial competence. The accompanying materials provide implementation guidance with 20 detailed steps, case studies of actions taken in seven pilot organisations, and links to additional resources. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a meaningful self-assessment over a period of three months and the usefulness of the results for developing longer-term action plans. CONCLUSION: The Framework represents the first self-assessment tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. Co-design with REPAG public members enhanced its authenticity and practicality. Organisations in the field of health and care research and any other organisations that use partnerships with the public are encouraged to adopt the Framework.

For a long time, race equality within research has not been a priority. To address this the NIHR created a group to come up with solutions to tackle this ­ the Race Equality Public Action Group. Recognising the need to help research organisations with how they involved members of the public from diverse groups, the Race Equality Framework was born. The Race Equality Framework was devised to help organisations become more inclusive, develop better links with diverse communities and make their work more equitable.Consultation with members of the public from Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held and were essential in developing the Framework. Sixteen organisations who are involved in health and care research were recruited as pilot partners. They worked through the Framework and provided further feedback and input.The final product is a self-assessment tool which comprises of 50 questions across five domains. These domains are: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions are designed to promote reflection and improve organisational good practice.This is the first tool of its kind, and we recommend its use for health and care research organisations that work closely and develop partnerships with members of the public.

Gender parity perspectives in Asia Pacific: a descriptive analysis of Philippine rheumatology conferences.

Gender parity at conferences can facilitate progress in academia towards the attainment of gender equality as emphasized in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. The Philippines is a low to middle-income country in the Asia Pacific with relatively egalitarian gender norms experiencing significant growth in rheumatology. We examined the Philippines as a case study to analyze the impact of divergent gender norms on gender equity in rheumatology conference participation. We used publicly available data from PRA conference materials from 2009 to 2021. Gender was identified from information provided by organizers, online science directory networks, and a name-to-gender inference platform, the Gender application program interface (API). International speakers were identified separately. The results were then compared to other rheumatology conferences around the world. The PRA had 47% female faculty. Women were more likely to be the first authors in abstracts at the PRA (68%). There were more females among new inductees in PRA with the male: female ratio (M:F) of 1:3. The gender gap among new members declined from 5:1 to 2.7:1 from 2010 to 2015. However, low female representation was observed among international faculty (16%). Gender parity at the PRA was found to be considerably better when compared to other rheumatology conferences in the USA, Mexico, India, and Europe. However, a wide gender gap persisted among international speakers. Cultural and social constructs may potentially contribute to gender equity in academic conferences. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of gender norms on gender parity in academia in other Asia-Pacific countries.

Gender equity in rheumatology leadership in the Asia-Pacific.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore gender equity in rheumatology leadership in the Asia-Pacific region as represented by the member national organizations (MNOs) of the Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of gender representation among the presidents of MNOs of APLAR in April 2022. We used the official website of each organization to acquire names and terms in the office of current and past presidents of each organization. The binary gender of each president was estimated using the name-to-gender inference platform Gender API (https://gender-api.com/). Proportions of male and female presidents were estimated for each organization. Data were compared for presidencies commencing before and in/after the year 2000. Results: We found a significant gap in gender parity, with most presidents in the region being men (210 of 252, 83%). More than one-third (7 of 19, 36.8%) of the MNOs had all male presidents, although the proportion of women improved from 7 to 25% in/after 2000 (P = 0.0002). A statistically significant increase in female representation was observed in Australia (P = 0.0268, from 7 to 39%) and New Zealand (P = 0.0011, where the proportion of female presidents increased from 0 to 45%), but not in other countries. Conclusion: A significant gap in gender parity exists in rheumatology leadership in the MNOs of APLAR. Trends suggest improvement over the last two decades, although statistically significant improvement is limited to a small number of countries.

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership. To explore both women's and men's perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. METHODS: Thematic analysis of data from two research projects: 53 GE survey respondents' free-text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi-structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt that current markers of achievement were not equitable to women, as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC-specific organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE. CONCLUSIONS: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion.

Gender equity in academic rheumatology, current status and potential for improvement: a cross-sectional study to inform an EULAR task force.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence on the current status of gender equity in academic rheumatology in Europe and potential for its improvement is limited. The EULAR convened a task force to obtain empirical evidence on the potential unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology. METHODS: This cross-sectional study comprised three web-based surveys conducted in 2020 among: (1) EULAR scientific member society leaders, (2) EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET) members and (3) EULAR Council members. Statistics were descriptive with significance testing for male/female responses assessed by χ2 test and t-test. RESULTS: Data from EULAR scientific member societies in 13 countries indicated that there were disproportionately fewer women in academic rheumatology than in clinical rheumatology, and they tended to be under-represented in senior academic roles. From 324 responses of EULAR and EMEUNET members (24 countries), we detected no gender differences in leadership aspirations, self-efficacy in career advancement and work-life integration as well as the share of time spent on research, but there were gender differences in working hours and the levels of perceived gender discrimination and sexual harassment. There were gender differences in the ranking of 7 of 26 factors impacting career advancement and of 8 of 24 potential interventions to aid career advancement. CONCLUSIONS: There are gender differences in career advancement in academic rheumatology. The study informs a EULAR task force developing a framework of potential interventions to accelerate gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology.

The population health role of academic health centres: a multiple-case exploratory study in Australia and England.

BACKGROUND: Academic health centres (AHCs) are organisations that aim to mobilise knowledge into practice by improving the responsiveness of health systems to emerging evidence. This study aims to explore the population health role of AHCs in Australia and England, where AHCs represent novel organisational forms. METHODS: A multiple-case study design using qualitative methods was used to explore population health goals and activities in four discrete AHCs in both countries during 2017 and 2018. Data from 85 interviews with AHC leaders, clinicians and researchers, direct observation, and documentation were analysed within and across the cases. RESULTS: Comparison across cases produced four cross-case themes: health care rather than population health; incremental rather than major health system change; different conceptions of "translation" and "innovation"; and unclear pathways to impact. The ability of the AHCs to define and enact a population health role was hindered during the study period by gaps in knowledge mobilisation strategies at a health system and policy level, the biomedical orientation of government designation schemes for AHCs in Australia and England, and competing expectations of the sovereign partner organisations in AHCs against a backdrop of limited operational resources. DISCUSSION: The study identifies several institutional elements that are likely to be needed for AHCs in Australia and England to deliver on both internal and external expectations of their population health role.

Gender equity in academic rheumatology: is there a gender gap at European rheumatology conferences?

OBJECTIVES: To obtain an overview of gender equity at European rheumatology conferences. METHODS: The proportion of women invited as either moderators or speakers to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) annual congresses and national conferences in Europe was calculated from the published congress materials from EULAR annual congresses (2015-2019) and the 2019 national conferences of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Data from EULAR congresses were further categorised by type of session. Significance testing was conducted using χ2 tests with the level of statistical significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The proportion of combined women moderators and speakers at EULAR varied from 40% to 43% between 2015 and 2019 with no obvious trend over time. There were higher proportions of women in the Health Professionals in Rheumatology and People with Arthritis and Rheumatism sessions (>50% consistently). However, these sessions represent <25% of EULAR congress invitations. Representation of women at the EULAR congress in 2019 (39.6%) was significantly higher than at the national congresses in France (28.6%) and Germany (29.6%) but similar to that observed in Italy (33.7%), Spain (41.7%) and the UK (42%). CONCLUSION: Women account for less than half of invited moderators and speakers at the conferences reviewed. Compared with historical EULAR data in 2003 (16%) and in 2004 (19%), the gender gap at EULAR congresses has narrowed considerably, but there remains a need to monitor and improve women's representation.

Equity for excellence in academic institutions: a manifesto for change.

Higher academic institutions in the UK need to drive improvements in equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) through sustainable practical interventions. A broad view of inclusivity is based on an intersectional approach that considers race, geographical location, caring responsibilities, disability, neurodiversity, religion, and LGBTQIA+ identities. We describe the establishment of a diverse stakeholder group to develop practical grass-roots recommendations through which improvements can be advanced. We have developed a manifesto for change, comprising six domains through which academic institutions can drive progress through setting short, medium, and long-term priorities. Interventions will yield rewards in recruitment and retention of a diverse talent pool, leading to enhanced impact and output.

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. SETTING: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). DATA: Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. RESULTS: Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model.

BACKGROUND: The underrepresentation of women in academic medicine at senior level and in leadership positions is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRC), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organisations and universities, conduct world class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the UK. Since 2011 BRCs are required to demonstrate significant progress in gender equity (GE) to be eligible to apply for funding. However, the evidence base for monitoring GE specifically in BRC settings is underdeveloped. This is the first survey tool designed to rank and identify new GE markers specific to the NIHR BRCs. METHODS: An online survey distributed to senior leadership, clinical and non-clinical researchers, trainees, administrative and other professionals affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC (N = 683). Participants ranked 13 markers of GE on a five point Likert scale by importance. Data were summarised using frequencies and descriptive statistics. Interrelationships between markers and underlying latent dimensions (factors) were determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 36% (243 respondents). Respondents were more frequently female (55%, n = 133), aged 41-50 years (33%, n = 81), investigators (33%, n = 81) affiliated to the BRC for 2-7 years (39.5%, n = 96). Overall participants ranked 'BRC senior leadership roles' and 'organisational policies on gender equity', to be the most important markers of GE. 58% (n = 141) and 57% (n = 139) respectively. Female participants ranked 'organisational policies' (64.7%, n = 86/133) and 'recruitment and retention' (60.9%, n = 81/133) most highly, whereas male participants ranked 'leadership development' (52.1%, n = 50/96) and 'BRC senior leadership roles' (50%, n = 48/96) as most important. Factor analyses identified two distinct latent dimensions: "organisational markers" and "individual markers" of GE in BRCs. CONCLUSIONS: A two-factor model of markers of achievement for GE with "organisational" and "individual" dimensions was identified. Implementation and sustainability of gender equity requires commitment at senior leadership and organisational policy level.

A systems approach for optimizing implementation to impact: meeting report and proceedings of the 2019 In the Trenches: Implementation to Impact International Summit.

BACKGROUND: The In the Trenches series of cutting-edge knowledge sharing events on impact for front-line experts and practitioners provides an engagement platform for diverse stakeholders across government, research funding organizations, industry, and academia to share emerging knowledge and practical experiences. The second event of the series In the Trenches: Implementation to Impact International Summit was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, on June 7-8, 2019. The overarching vision for the Summit was to create an engagement platform for addressing key challenges and finding practical solutions to move from implementation (i.e. putting findings into effect) to impact (i.e. creating benefits to society and the economy). PROCESSES AND PROCEEDINGS: The Summit used diverse approaches to facilitate active engagement and knowledge sharing between 80 delegates across sectors and jurisdictions. Summit sessions mostly consisted of short talks and moderated panels grouped into eight thematic sessions. Each presentation included a summary of Key Messages, along with a summary of the Actionable Insights which concluded each session. The presentations and discussions are analysed, synthesized and described in this proceedings paper using a systems approach. This demonstrates how the Summit focused on each of the necessary functions (and associated components) that should be undertaken, and combined, for effective research and innovation: stewardship and governance, securing finance, creating capacity, and producing and using research. The approach also identifies relevant challenges. CONCLUSIONS: There is increased interest globally in the benefits that can accrue from adopting a systems approach to research and innovation. Various organizations in Canada and internationally have made considerable progress on Implementation to Impact, often as a result of well-planned initiatives. The Summit highlights the value of 1) collaboration between researchers and potential users, and 2) the adoption by funders of approaches involving an increasing range of responsibilities and activities. The Summit website (https://inthetrenchessummit.com/) will be periodically updated with new resources and information about future In the Trenches events.