Gender composition of spasticity-related clinical practice guideline authorship positions.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION PM&R Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13355
Hannah Uhlig-Reche, Jeremy W Jacobs, Christine S Gaspard, Julie K Silver, Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez
{"title":"Gender composition of spasticity-related clinical practice guideline authorship positions.","authors":"Hannah Uhlig-Reche, Jeremy W Jacobs, Christine S Gaspard, Julie K Silver, Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered topic experts and specialists. Studies to date have disproportionately found that women are underrepresented in CPG authorship, but no studies have investigated CPGs on spasticity published in the recent literature.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the gender composition of author positions on spasticity-related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective review of literature.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Systematic literature search using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for spasticity-related CPGs available in English and published between 2014 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Authorship positions on spasticity-related CPGs published during the defined study period.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Gender composition of all author positions and physician author positions on spasticity-related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023 were compared with parity and equity benchmarks. The binomial test was used to assess for a difference in the observed versus expected distribution (parity) and the N - 1 χ<sup>2</sup> test was used to compare the gender proportions of authorship positions with the gender proportions of the equity benchmarks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six CPGs on spasticity were published during the study period. Most author positions were held by women (54.5%), whereas most physician author positions were held by men physicians (63%). Men physicians held significantly more positions compared with parity (p = .016). Women were overrepresented among all author positions compared with equity using total U.S. academic medicine faculty in neurology/physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) at all benchmark years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2014: 7.7-23.5; 2018: 4.2-20.0; 2022: 1.4-17.2). There was no difference in the gender composition of physician authors compared with academic medicine physicians in neurology/PM&R for any benchmark year (95% CI: 2014: -8.3 to 11.6; 2018: -2.0 to 7.9; 2022: -4.7 to 5.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Physician authorship of recent spasticity-related CPGs comprises mostly men, a significant difference from parity but not from equity benchmarks. Women are overrepresented among total authorship positions (including nonphysicians) compared with equity, but not parity. Editorial boards should actively promote authorship diversity of these influential guidelines to minimize gender bias in health care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":"961-969"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13355","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered topic experts and specialists. Studies to date have disproportionately found that women are underrepresented in CPG authorship, but no studies have investigated CPGs on spasticity published in the recent literature.

Objective: To determine the gender composition of author positions on spasticity-related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023.

Design: Retrospective review of literature.

Setting: Systematic literature search using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for spasticity-related CPGs available in English and published between 2014 and 2023.

Participants: Authorship positions on spasticity-related CPGs published during the defined study period.

Interventions: Not applicable.

Main outcome measures: Gender composition of all author positions and physician author positions on spasticity-related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023 were compared with parity and equity benchmarks. The binomial test was used to assess for a difference in the observed versus expected distribution (parity) and the N - 1 χ2 test was used to compare the gender proportions of authorship positions with the gender proportions of the equity benchmarks.

Results: Six CPGs on spasticity were published during the study period. Most author positions were held by women (54.5%), whereas most physician author positions were held by men physicians (63%). Men physicians held significantly more positions compared with parity (p = .016). Women were overrepresented among all author positions compared with equity using total U.S. academic medicine faculty in neurology/physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) at all benchmark years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2014: 7.7-23.5; 2018: 4.2-20.0; 2022: 1.4-17.2). There was no difference in the gender composition of physician authors compared with academic medicine physicians in neurology/PM&R for any benchmark year (95% CI: 2014: -8.3 to 11.6; 2018: -2.0 to 7.9; 2022: -4.7 to 5.2).

Conclusions: Physician authorship of recent spasticity-related CPGs comprises mostly men, a significant difference from parity but not from equity benchmarks. Women are overrepresented among total authorship positions (including nonphysicians) compared with equity, but not parity. Editorial boards should actively promote authorship diversity of these influential guidelines to minimize gender bias in health care delivery.

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
痉挛相关临床实践指南作者职位的性别构成。
背景:临床实践指南(CPGs)的作者被认为是主题专家和专家。迄今为止的研究不成比例地发现,女性在CPG作者中的代表性不足,但在最近的文献中没有发表关于痉挛的CPG研究。目的:了解2014 - 2023年发表的痉挛相关cpg的作者性别构成。设计:文献回顾。设置:使用PubMed、SCOPUS和CINAHL数据库进行系统文献检索,检索2014年至2023年间发表的英文痉挛相关cpg。参与者:在规定的研究期间发表的与痉挛相关的cpg的作者职位。干预措施:不适用。主要结局指标:比较2014年至2023年发表的痉挛相关cpg的所有作者职位和医师作者职位的性别构成,并以平等和公平基准进行比较。使用二项检验来评估观察到的分布与预期分布(宇称)的差异,并使用N - 1 χ2检验来比较作者职位的性别比例与公平基准的性别比例。结果:研究期间共发表了6篇关于痉挛的cpg。大多数作者职位由女性担任(54.5%),而大多数医生作者职位由男性医生担任(63%)。男性医师的职位明显多于女性医师(p = 0.016)。在所有基准年,与美国神经病学/物理医学和康复(PM&R)的学术医学教师总数相比,女性在所有作者职位中的比例过高(95%置信区间[CI]: 2014: 7.7-23.5;2018: 4.2 - -20.0;2022: 1.4 - -17.2)。在任何基准年,医师作者的性别构成与神经病学/PM&R的学术医学医师相比均无差异(95% CI: 2014: -8.3至11.6;2018年:-2.0至7.9;2022年:-4.7到5.2)。结论:近期与痉挛相关的CPGs的医师作者主要是男性,与平价有显著差异,但与公平基准没有显著差异。女性在所有作者职位(包括非医生)中所占比例高于男性,但并非平等。编辑委员会应积极促进这些有影响力的指南的作者多样性,以尽量减少卫生保健服务中的性别偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
期刊最新文献
Differences in female athlete triad risk factors between Japanese and American female runners: A comparative study. A medical education leadership track for PM&R residents: A promising way to develop clinician educators. Quantitative assessments of ultrasound-based rotator cuff muscle quality. Simultaneous tibial and fibular sesamoid bone stress injuries in a collegiate volleyball player: The role of shockwave therapy in recovery and return to sport. Differences in phantom limb, residual limb, and bodily pain during pain recall and increasing activity intensity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation.
×
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:604180095
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