Liderazgo de la mujer en la investigación clínica: estudio observacional retrospectivo durante dos décadas en España / Women's leadership in clinical research: A retrospective observational study over two decades in Spain

Antecedentes y objetivo Los datos disponibles avalan las diferencias por género en el liderazgo de las investigaciones clínicas (IC). Este estudio analiza en qué medida las mujeres lideran estas investigaciones. Materiales y métodos Estudio observacional retrospectivo en un hospital universitario terciario asociado a uno de los institutos de investigación sanitaria más importantes de España. Analizamos los investigadores principales (IP) por género (2001-2020). Variable principal: proporción de IC lideradas por mujeres durante el período de estudio. Variables secundarias: diferencias de IP por género según el tipo de estudio: ensayos clínicos (EC) o estudios de no-intervención (ENI) y según la financiación. Fuentes de datos: registros del Comité de Ética en Investigación con medicamentos (CEIm) y del Departamento de Recursos Humanos. Resultados Durante el estudio, el CEIm aprobó 8.466 protocolos; el 52% (4.408/8.466) fueron EC y el resto, ENI. Las mujeres lideraron un 39,7% (3.360/8.466) del total. La brecha de género se observó principalmente en EC: las mujeres fueron IP de un 31,5% de ellos (1.391/4.408) y de un 48,5% (1.969/4.058) de los ENI. Ello a pesar de la tendencia creciente del número de facultativas. Los estudios de financiación privada fueron más comúnmente liderados por hombres. Conclusiones Nuestros resultados demuestran que existe una infrarrepresentación de las mujeres en puestos de liderazgo en la investigación, principalmente en aquellos con financiación privada. Este estudio refuerza la idea de que todavía queda un largo camino por recorrer en este campo. Se necesitan más estudios para la identificación de diferencias existentes que permitan implantar cambios a nivel institucional y cultural que promuevan la igualdad de género en el ámbito de la investigación clínica (AU)

Background and objective Available data support differences by gender in the leadership of clinical investigations (CI). This study analyzes to what extent women lead these investigations. Materials and method Observational-retrospective study in a tertiary university hospital associated with one of the most important health research institutes in Spain. We analyzed the principal investigators (PI) by gender from 2001 to 2020. Main outcome: proportion of CI led by female doctors (FD) during the study period. Secondary outcomes: differences in PI by gender according to the type of study: clinical trials (CT) or non-interventional-researches (NIR) and according to type of funding. Data sources: Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Human Resources Department registries. Result During the study, the REC approved 8,466 protocols, 52% (4,408/8,466) were EC, the rest were NIR. Women led 39.7% (3,360/8,466) of the total. The gender gap was observed mainly in EC: FD were IP of 31.5% of them (1,391/4,408) and 48.5% (1,969/4,058) of NIR. This despite the increasing trend in the number of FD staff. By type of funding, when the studies were supported by private sector there was a wider gap markedly unfavorable for women. Conclusions Our results show that there is underrepresentation of women in research leadership, mainly those with private financing. This study reinforces the idea that there is still a long way to go in this field. More studies are necessary to identify the existing differences that allow the implementation of actions at the institutional and cultural level that promote gender equality in the field of clinical research (AU)

Women's leadership in clinical research: A retrospective observational study over two decades in Spain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Available data support differences by gender in the leadership of clinical investigations (CI). This study analyzes to what extent women lead these investigations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational-retrospective study in a tertiary university hospital associated with one of the most important health research institutes in Spain. We analyzed the principal investigators (PI) by gender from 2001 to 2020. MAIN OUTCOME: proportion of CI led by female doctors (FD) during the study period. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: differences in PI by gender according to the type of study: clinical trials (CT) or non-interventional-researches (NIR) and according to type of funding. DATA SOURCES: Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Human Resources Department registries. RESULTS: During the study, the REC approved 8466 protocols, 52% (4408/8466) were EC, the rest were NIR. Women led 39.7% (3360/8466) of the total. The gender gap was observed mainly in EC: FD were IP of 31.5% of them (1391/4408) and 48.5% (1969/4058) of NIR. This despite the increasing trend in the number of FD staff. By type of funding, when the studies were supported by private sector there was a wider gap markedly unfavorable for women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that there is underrepresentation of women in research leadership, mainly those with private financing. This study reinforces the idea that there is still a long way to go in this field. More studies are necessary to identify the existing differences that allow the implementation of actions at the institutional and cultural level that promote gender equality in the field of clinical research.