ArticleBMJ open2016
Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- 25-year analysis of gender and professional trends in authorship of highly cited articles in leading ophthalmology journals.European journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Women's Authorship of Reviews in Ophthalmic Journals Over Time.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2): Protocol for a Horizon 2020 Funded European Multicenter Project to Promote Responsible Research and Innovation.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Good practice or positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in academic medicine.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes.BMJ open · 2016Article
- A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranslational research organisations (TROs) are a core component of the UK's expanding research base. Equity of career opportunity is key to ensuring a diverse and internationally competitive workforce. The UK now requires TROs to demonstrate how they are supporting gender equity. Yet, the evidence base for documenting such efforts is sparse. This study is designed to inform the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership in two of the UK's leading TROs--the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) in Oxford and London--through the development, application and dissemination of a conceptual framework and measurement tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional retrospective evaluation. A conceptual framework with markers of achievement and corresponding candidate metrics has been specifically designed for this study based on an adapted balanced scorecard approach. It will be refined with an online stakeholder consultation and semistructured interviews to test the face validity and explore practices and mechanisms that influence gender equity in the given settings. Data will be collected via the relevant administrative databases. A comparison of two funding periods (2007-2012 and 2012-2017) will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Oxford Clinical Trials and Research Governance Team and the Research and Development Governance Team of Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust reviewed the study and deemed it exempt from full ethics review. The results of the study will be used to inform prospective planning and monitoring within the participating NIHR BRCs with a view to accelerating women's advancement and leadership. Both the results of the study and its methodology will be further disseminated to academics and practitioners through the networks of collaborating TROs, relevant conferences and articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.