PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Equitable inclusion of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and women in research authorship is a priority. A review of progress in addressing WHO-identified priorities provided an opportunity to examine the geographical and gender distribution of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research.
METHODS: Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26.
RESULTS: Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015-2020.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.
METHODS: Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26.
RESULTS: Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015-2020.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.
摘要：
背景：在研究作者中公平地纳入低收入和中等收入国家（LMIC）研究人员和妇女是一个优先事项。对世卫组织确定的优先事项的进展进行了审查，为审查2型单纯疱疹病毒（HSV-2）研究中作者身份的地理和性别分布提供了机会。
方法：确定了在2000年至2020年期间出版的关于世卫组织研讨会优先考虑的五个领域的出版物。关于作者国家的数据，性别,作者职位和研究资金来源是通过手稿审查和互联网搜索收集的，并使用IBMSPSSV.26进行了分析。
结果：已确定297份合格文件，（n=294）有多个作者。其中,241（82％）包括至少一位LMIC作者，143（49％）和122（41％）有LMIC第一和最后一位作者，分别。LMIC资助的研究包括LMIC第一作者或最后作者的可能性是高收入国家资助研究的两倍多(相对风险2.36，95%CI1.93至2.89)。分别,129（46％）和106（36％）研究有女性第一和最后一位作者。LMIC的第一和最后作者身份因HSV-2研究领域而异，并随着时间的推移增加到2015-2020年的65％和59％。
结论：尽管研究本身位于LMIC环境中，在20年的时间里，LMIC研究人员仅持有少数第一和最后作者职位。虽然LMIC在这些职位上的代表性随着时间的推移而提高，重要的研究领域和妇女仍然存在重要的不平等。解决全球卫生研究中当前和历史的权力差距，研究基础设施及其资助方式可能是解决这些问题的关键。
方法：确定了在2000年至2020年期间出版的关于世卫组织研讨会优先考虑的五个领域的出版物。关于作者国家的数据，性别,作者职位和研究资金来源是通过手稿审查和互联网搜索收集的，并使用IBMSPSSV.26进行了分析。
结果：已确定297份合格文件，（n=294）有多个作者。其中,241（82％）包括至少一位LMIC作者，143（49％）和122（41％）有LMIC第一和最后一位作者，分别。LMIC资助的研究包括LMIC第一作者或最后作者的可能性是高收入国家资助研究的两倍多(相对风险2.36，95%CI1.93至2.89)。分别,129（46％）和106（36％）研究有女性第一和最后一位作者。LMIC的第一和最后作者身份因HSV-2研究领域而异，并随着时间的推移增加到2015-2020年的65％和59％。
结论：尽管研究本身位于LMIC环境中，在20年的时间里，LMIC研究人员仅持有少数第一和最后作者职位。虽然LMIC在这些职位上的代表性随着时间的推移而提高，重要的研究领域和妇女仍然存在重要的不平等。解决全球卫生研究中当前和历史的权力差距，研究基础设施及其资助方式可能是解决这些问题的关键。
