Women represent 70% of the global health workforce but only occupy 25% of health and social care leadership positions. Gender-based stereotypes, discrimination, family responsibilities, and self-perceived deficiencies in efficacy and confidence inhibit the seniority and leadership of women. The leadership inequality is often compounded by the intersection of race and socio-economic identities. Resolving gender inequalities in healthcare leadership brings women\'s expertise to healthcare decision making, which can lead to equity of healthcare access and improve healthcare services. With the aim of enhancing women\'s advancement to leadership positions, a rapid realist review (RRR) was conducted to identify the leadership and career advancement interventions that work for women in healthcare, why these interventions are effective, for whom they are effective, and within which contexts these interventions work. A RRR ultimately articulates this knowledge through a theory describing an intervention\'s generative causation. The Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) for conducting a realist synthesis guided the methodology. Preliminary theories on leadership and career advancement interventions for women in healthcare were constructed based on an appraisal of key reviews and consultation with an expert panel, which guided the systematic searching and initial theory refinement. Following the literature search, 22 studies met inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The review process and consultation with the expert panel yielded nine final programme theories. Theories on programmes which enhanced leadership outcomes among women in health services or professional associations centred on organisational and management involvement; mentorship of women; delivering leadership education; and development of key leadership skills. The success of these strategies was facilitated by accommodating programme environments, adequacy and relevance of support provided and programme accessibility. The relationship between underlying intervention entities, stakeholder responses, contexts and leadership outcomes, provides a basis for underpinning the design for leadership and career advancement interventions for women in healthcare.

UNASSIGNED: Gender gap is a neologism that identifies the disparity between social and professional conditions experienced by females compared to males. The disparity increases as one ascends the academic hierarchy. In recent years, the debate has expanded, and more options have been planned for the elimination of the current gender gap.
UNASSIGNED: This research was conducted by examining the landscape of the gender gap, particularly in the academic forensic medicine field. Our analysis involved reviewing papers published between 2006 and 2024, identified through electronic database searches (PubMed). The search terms used were: \"gender gap\" AND \"academic\" AND \"medicine\" AND \"leadership.\" In total, we analyzed 85 papers. Additionally, we examined data from forensic medicine residency programs.
UNASSIGNED: The representation of women in medicine is well-known. Despite the increasing number of women in leadership positions in medicine, they still lag significantly behind men. These data highlight a situation that could be seen as grounds for an accusation of \"academic abuse\". In the Italian forensic residency programs, less than 20% are led by women, and among these, not all hold the rank of full professor. Although a certain rebalancing is already underway, the gap is still significant. There are already regulations obliging local authorities to promote gender equality in councils, companies, and institutions under their jurisdiction. It would be desirable to consider minimum quotas for female participation in university competitions. This would be a first step toward eliminating the gender gap in academic and forensic medical fields.

Teen pregnancy is often considered an adverse health outcome that accentuates gender inequities, diminishes opportunities, and jeopardizes the safety of adolescent and young adult birthing people. Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARC) have been hailed as a panacea for teen pregnancy. However, adolescents and emerging adults intersect with multiple assaults on their health and well-being due to gender inequity and racism. To establish equitable care, it is imperative to discern all barriers that influence their reproductive autonomy. This study evaluates the measurement, operationalization, and quality of research conducted on adolescents and emerging adults that analyzed the use of LARC within the social determinant of health framework (SDOH) in the US. SDOH were assessed using the Dahlgren and Whitehead model, and reports were analyzed using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools. Nineteen articles were included in this study. Researchers found the insufficient measurement of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender among studies on LARC and SDOH in adolescents and emerging adults. Future studies must measure a full range of identities in data collection to generate knowledge on the impact of SDOH and LARC use among diverse populations.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are responsible for approximately 35% of all deaths in women. In 2019, the global age-standardized CVD prevalence and mortality of women were 6,403 per 100,000 and 204 per 100,000, respectively. Although the age- and population-adjusted prevalence has decreased globally, opposite trends are evident in regions of socioeconomic deprivation. Cardiovascular health and outcomes are influenced by regional socioeconomic, environmental, and community factors, in addition to health care system and individual factors. Cardiovascular care in women is commonly plagued by delayed diagnoses, undertreatment, and knowledge gaps, particularly in women-specific or women-predominant conditions. In this paper, we describe the global epidemiology of CVD and highlight multilevel determinants of cardiometabolic health. We review knowledge and health care gaps that serve as barriers to improving CVD outcomes in women. Finally, we present national, community, health care system, and research strategies to comprehensively address cardiometabolic risk and improve outcomes in women.

BACKGROUND: Gender equity in urological meetings is pivotal for fostering diversity and inclusivity in the field. This study aims to evaluate the representation of Spanish urologist and regional disparities, and to assess its alignment with the demographic composition of the urological community.
METHODS: All urology meetings organized by the AEU between January 2012 and December 2022 were reviewed, including meeting information and details of the faculty. Additionally, we analysed geographic distribution of speakers across 17 different regions. Gender demographics were obtained disaggregating data by sex and year from the Organización Médica Colegial de España (OMC) and from those urologists affiliated to the AEU.
RESULTS: Analysing 52 AEU congresses held from 2012 to 2022, encompassing 3,407 speakers, the study found that 95.25% of speakers were from Spain and 89.6% were male speakers. Over the years, there was a positive trend in female speaker representation, increasing by 1.1% annually, slightly lagging the 1.8% annual rise in the number of female urologists in Spain. In specific subfields like functional, transplantation, and oncology sessions, the study revealed a higher representation of women, indicating focused efforts in these areas. Geographically, Madrid, Catalonia and Andalusia exhibited the highest representation.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a positive trend towards an increased participation of female urologists in Spanish urological meetings, it fails to accurately reflect the proportional increase in the number of women entering the urology profession in recent years. This study underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to ensure diverse and balanced representation in urological forum.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.
METHODS: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.
UNASSIGNED: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.
RESULTS: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42022282565.

BACKGROUND: Considering evidence of closing the gender gap in dental scholarship, this study assessed women\'s participation as authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board for The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) from 2000 through 2022.
METHODS: The study authors downloaded author names from PubMed and retrieved names of reviewers and editorial board members from JADA\'s pages. The authors used Gender-API software to determine gender on the basis of first names. They used logistic regression to test for trends.
RESULTS: From January 2000 through December 2022, there were 2,935 full-length articles, 2,775 reviewers, 4 editors in chief, and 85 editorial board members. The percentage of women authors increased by 1.2% annually (95% CI, 1.03% to 1.33%), reaching 47% in 2022. First authorship increased by 2.1% annually (95% CI, 1.84% to 2.39%) and has been at more than 50% since 2016. In articles with multiple authors, there was a modest increase; second authorship increased 0.7% annually (95% CI, 0.36% to 1.09%) and last authorship by 0.7% (95% CI, 0.03% to 1.00%). Women reviewers increased 0.8% annually (95% CI, 0.68% to 0.97%), but the percentage of women on the editorial board did not increase significantly and was 41% in 2022.
CONCLUSIONS: It was anticipated that 50% of JADA authors would be women by 2024. However, women are still underrepresented on the editorial board. A comprehensive effort is needed to foster role models, provide mentorship opportunities for women, and support women\'s professional advancement in dental research and publications.
CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based disparities affect women in dental education and clinical practice. Serving as an editorial board member, reviewer, or author can affect academic promotion and the type of scientific investigation being conducted and indirectly affects women\'s health outcomes.

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study\'s findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.

BACKGROUND: Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities.
METHODS: Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article\'s first and senior author and journal\'s editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher\'s exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles.
RESULTS: Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

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.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .