The present study analyzes a cohort of consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), evaluating the ischemia-reperfusion times from the perspective of gender differences (females versus males), with a long-term follow-up.
Single-center analytical cohort study of patients with STEMI in a tertiary hospital, between January 2015 and December 2020.
A total of 2668 patients were included, 2002 (75%) men and 666 (25%) women. The time elapsed from the onset of symptoms to the opening of the artery was 197min (IQR 140-300) vs 220min (IQR 152-340), p=0.004 in men and women respectively. A delay in health care significantly impacts the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse events at follow-up, HR 1.34 [95%CI 1.06-1.70]; p=0.015.
Women took longer to go to health care services and had a longer delay both in the diagnosis of STEMI and in coronary reperfusion. It is imperative to emphasize the necessity of educating women about the recognition of ischemic heart disease symptoms, empowering them to raise early alarms and seek timely medical attention.

OBJECTIVE: To delve deeper from a gender perspective into the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to address future health crises.
METHODS: Study with key informants with experience in public health and gender from the Ministerio de Sanidad, ministries of the autonomous communities, Institut Català de la Salut, Hospital de La Princesa, Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública and Universidad País Vasco.
METHODS: individual open-ended questionnaire on health and health inequalities/gender inequalities related to COVID-19. After presenting the findings, the key informants group discussed them in a meeting until reaching a consensus on the lessons learned.
RESULTS: The lack of clinical statistics by sex could compromise epidemiological surveillance, losing the opportunity to characterize the disease. The performance of essential services fell more on women, exhausting them with double and triple shifts; with the differences according to sex in the clinical presentation of COVID-19, and the criteria for hospitalization/admission to the intensive care unit, their access to health care decreased. Increased: gender violence and mental health problems; delaying recognition of the second effects of vaccines in women; partially due to information biases in clinical trials. The gender perspective was lacking in academic, healthcare, and health management areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Women\'s gender dimensions determined their higher frequency of COVID-19 and played a fundamental role in its control. Broadly considering the lessons learned will strengthen prevention systems and be able to provide effective responses to future health crises.

OBJECTIVE: The approach to Acute Coronary Syndrome from a gender perspective is relatively recent. Research is extensive at epidemiological and clinical levels. However, available evidence, besides neglecting the social dimensions of the disease, has made women invisible. The objective of this review was to analyze the inequalities and gender biases in Acute Coronary Syndrome, from the beginning of the disease process to the final resolution.
METHODS: An exhaustive review of the literature of the entire health care process, from risk factors to rehabilitation and recovery, was carried out. The search for articles on gender, gender inequalities, or gender bias was conducted in indexed journals of social and health sciences. Also, a specific search was performed for each stage of the process, such as risk factors, prehospital phase, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.
RESULTS: Results showed the presence of gender biases throughout the entire health care process in Acute Coronary Syndrome. It is shown gender inequalities in the access to medical care, including a poor recognition among women themselves as well as among health professionals; longer prehospital delays; inadequate diagnoses and treatments; or less assistance to cardiac rehabilitation programmes. These biases occurred at the different levels of the health services involved. Finally, this review included recommendations proposed or arising from the revised papers.
CONCLUSIONS: Reducing gender biases in Acute Coronary Syndrome implies developing strategies to raise awareness among women, improve training of professionals serving at the different levels of health services, reduce delays, develop health management measures, and promote a research agenda.

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been paid to gender inequities in health. However, while we have a good body of evidence on the impact of gender on the health and vulnerability of women and men, we have not yet been able to generate sufficient evidence on effective interventions that can transform this situation or can influence public health policy making. Only a limited number of educational interventions on gender-sensitivity, gender bias in clinical practice and policies to tackle gender inequalities in health have been formulated, implemented and evaluated. Even in the current pandemic situation caused by SARS-CoV2, we have seen the lack of gender mainstreaming reflected in the global response. This happens even when we have tools that facilitate the formulation and implementation of actions to reduce gender inequities in health. We consider that the current initiatives organized to carry out advocacy activities on gender inequity in health to be very positive. In the same line of these initiatives, we propose that while academic and institutional research on gender and health remains essential, we need to shift the focus towards action. In order to move forward, we need public health researchers questioning what public health practice need to do to address gender inequities and shake structural and social power inequities in order to increase the gender equity in health.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown a lower female participation in scientific publications. The objective of this study is to analyse the gender inequalities in the main Spanish journals of medical publications.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study of the main Spanish medical journals classified by SCImago Journal & Country Ranking (n=24) and their publications (n=3.375), during the year 2017. Women/men ratio in authorship was calculated for all journals and types of papers. Bivariate analyses were developed with the type of article as the dependent variable, and gender, institution, and country of the first and last authors as the independent variables. Logistic regression models were performed to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the types of papers according to authorship gender, institution, and country. The statistical program used was R.
RESULTS: The total number of authors was 16,252 (44.2% women, 53.9% men, and 1.9% non-identified gender). Women represented 46% of the first authors and 33.5% of the last ones. Women were the first authors of Editorials less often than men (aOR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.51), but more often in Originals (aOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.33-1.80). Women were the last authors with less frequency in all types of papers, especially in Editorials (aOR 0.50; 95% CI 0.35-0.70). The women/men ratio in authorship was less than 0.80 in 10 of 26 journals analysed (41.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: These results show the gender inequalities in the authorship of the main Spanish medical journals in 2017, especially as first authors and Editorials.

To determine the percentage of female authors in original articles published during 2periods, in the journal of Atención Primaria (Primary Care), and to examine the differences between the categories of authorship (first, last author, and co-author) between both periods.
Cross-sectional study.
Feminine scientific production published during the periods 2007-2008 and 2017-2018.
The study was focused on original articles.
The following variables were collected in an ad hoc form: gender based on the name of the author, total number of women and men appearing as authors, and order of authorship. Absolute and relative authorship frequencies were calculated, and the χ2 test was used to examine the evolution of the percentages by type of authorship and gender.
A total of 108 articles were analysed in 2007-2008, and 100 in 2017-2018. No statistically significant differences were observed between the mean numbers of women authors within and between periods. In 2007-2008 a total of 548 female authors were identified and 540 in 2017-2018, the percentage of female authors was 48.7% and 54.4%, respectively. Only an increase in the percentage of first authors was observed between periods.
Practically one out of every 2authors of original articles published in the journal Atención Primaria was female. There was also a significant increase in the percentage of female first authors between the 2periods. Nevertheless, and despite the greater number of health workers, the number of latest female authors remain unchanged, which points to the persistence of female under-representation.

To identify in the international scientific literature the obstacles and potential promoters for the advancement of women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences during their professional careers.
PubMed, Scopus, CinahlPlus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched for articles published in English and Spanish between January 2006 and December 2016 on the phenomenon of the glass ceiling in women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences. The screening was carried out by independent reviewers.
A total of 2254 studies were found, of which 23 were included in the review. The obstacles identified for the promotion of women academics and/or researchers in biomedical sciences are: gender bias in the evaluation of research results, individualism and lack of collaboration, women\'s lack of influence, the existence of gender inequalities in access to employment. The perception of sexism and discrimination in the work environment, and the difficulties in reconciling work and family life. The promoting elements are: examples of women in leadership positions, mentoring, facilitating conciliation, transparency in recruitment, participation in decision-making, gender assessment of research, awareness of gender inequalities in institutions, promoting collaboration, and pay equity.
By enhancing the elements favouring the promotion of academic women in biomedical sciences would help to reduce the glass ceiling in the career paths of women academics and health science researchers by increasing their participation, leadership and representation. A change of organizational and institutional values is required to achieve this.

Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of research findings and their applicability to clinical practice, in particular for women but also for men. This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines.
A panel of 13 experts representing nine countries developed the guidelines through a series of teleconferences, conference presentations and a 2-day workshop. An internet survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community was conducted as well as a literatura search on sex and gender policies in scientific publishing.
The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings.
The SAGER guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.