Where Are All the Female Participants in Sports and Exercise Medicine Research? A Decade Later

Benjamin M. Ose, Jake Eisenhauer, Isaiah Roepe, Ashley A. Herda, Bryan G. Vopat, Lisa M. Vopat
{"title":"Where Are All the Female Participants in Sports and Exercise Medicine Research? A Decade Later","authors":"Benjamin M. Ose, Jake Eisenhauer, Isaiah Roepe, Ashley A. Herda, Bryan G. Vopat, Lisa M. Vopat","doi":"10.1177/03635465241278350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:In 2014, Costello and colleagues published a sentinel paper spotlighting the large disparity of female versus male representation within sports science and sports medicine (SSSM) research.Purpose:To (1) revisit the method published by Costello et al a decade later to evaluate female representation and (2) ascertain whether study designs account for menstrual status.Study Design:Systematic Review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:All original and epidemiologic research of live human participants from the journals Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, British Journal of Sports Medicine, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine were included from January 2021 to August 2023. Number of male and female participants for each study was analyzed. A menstrual-status tiering system published by Smith et al was used to classify the consideration of female participants’ menstrual status in study design.Results:A total of 1441 studies and 40,152,860 participants were included in this analysis. This included 17,648,509 (43.95%) female participants. The mean proportion of female participants per study was 40.22%, and 103 (7.15%) studies included only female participants compared with 268 (18.6%) male-only studies. A total of 66 (5.6%) studies included menstrual-status considerations in their study design with 7.7 (0.7%) and 5.5 (0.5%) receiving a silver or gold classification, respectively, for design considerations.Conclusion:Our investigation into the representation of female athletes in SSSM research found an increase in female participation from 39% to 43.95% of total participants over the past decade. While the overall number of female participants rose in the years 2021 to 2023, there remains a significant disparity in female representation in SSSM research compared with male participants. Additionally, we found that the inclusion of menstrual status in study designs has been limited, with few studies considering this crucial variable.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241278350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:In 2014, Costello and colleagues published a sentinel paper spotlighting the large disparity of female versus male representation within sports science and sports medicine (SSSM) research.Purpose:To (1) revisit the method published by Costello et al a decade later to evaluate female representation and (2) ascertain whether study designs account for menstrual status.Study Design:Systematic Review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:All original and epidemiologic research of live human participants from the journals Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, British Journal of Sports Medicine, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine were included from January 2021 to August 2023. Number of male and female participants for each study was analyzed. A menstrual-status tiering system published by Smith et al was used to classify the consideration of female participants’ menstrual status in study design.Results:A total of 1441 studies and 40,152,860 participants were included in this analysis. This included 17,648,509 (43.95%) female participants. The mean proportion of female participants per study was 40.22%, and 103 (7.15%) studies included only female participants compared with 268 (18.6%) male-only studies. A total of 66 (5.6%) studies included menstrual-status considerations in their study design with 7.7 (0.7%) and 5.5 (0.5%) receiving a silver or gold classification, respectively, for design considerations.Conclusion:Our investigation into the representation of female athletes in SSSM research found an increase in female participation from 39% to 43.95% of total participants over the past decade. While the overall number of female participants rose in the years 2021 to 2023, there remains a significant disparity in female representation in SSSM research compared with male participants. Additionally, we found that the inclusion of menstrual status in study designs has been limited, with few studies considering this crucial variable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Combining an Anterolateral Complex Procedure With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Reduces Graft Reinjury Without Increasing the Rate of Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials The Continuous Fragility Index of Statistically Significant Findings in Studies Based on High Levels of Evidence Comparing Interventions for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Biomechanical Properties of Meniscal Repair Versus Meniscectomy for Horizontal Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review Knotless Versus Knotted Suture Anchors for Labral Repair of the Hip: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes Where Are All the Female Participants in Sports and Exercise Medicine Research? A Decade Later
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1