SynthesisBMJ open2018
A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Women's leadership in academic medicine: a systematic review of extent, condition and interventions.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Devaluation underlies gendered US faculty departures across disciplines and institutions.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- A systematic analysis of the gender disparities in oncology journal editorial boards.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Article
- Gender-based disparities in self-reported procedural experience: a cross-sectional survey of medical students in Poland.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Article
- Exploring the lived experiences of early- and mid-career female academic GPs in the UK: a biographical narrative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Global Trends and Cross-Country Differences in Authorship by Women in Academic Anaesthesiology Since 1996: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gastroenterology Training and Career in Women: Challenges and Opportunities.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Review
- Social capital as a catalyst for gender inequality: A scoping review of networking disparities in academic medicine.Cancer · 2025Article
- A rapid realist review on leadership and career advancement interventions for women in healthcare.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- The Female Global Scholars Program: A mixed-methods evaluation of a novel intervention to promote the retention and advancement of women in global health research.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Racial diversity amongst Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery programs in Canada.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023Article
- Mentorship in academic medicine: truth is in the eye of the beholder.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2023Article
- A Qualitative Investigation of Burnout and Well-being Among Faculty and Residents in a Canadian Psychiatry Department.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2023Article
- The physician gender pay gap in Maryland: current state and future directions.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Using a Modified Delphi Approach and Nominal Group Technique for Organisational Priority Setting of Evidence-Based Interventions That Advance Women in Healthcare Leadership.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarise quantitative evaluations of interventions designed to support the careers of women in academia of any discipline.
methodA systematic search of English entries in PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar was conducted in September 2017. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by two authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal checklists. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in methods and outcomes; results were synthesised and displayed narratively.
resultsEighteen eligible studies were identified, mostly evaluating programmes in academic medicine departments. The most common interventions were mentoring, education, professional development and/or networking programmes. All programmes took a 'bottom-up' approach in that women were responsible for opting into and devoting time to participation. Study quality was low overall, but all studies reported positive outcomes on at least one indicator. Most often this included improvements in self-rated skills and capabilities, or satisfaction with the programme offered. Results regarding tangible outcomes were mixed; while some studies noted improvements in promotion, retention and remuneration, others did not.
conclusionsThis review suggests that targeted programmes have the potential to improve some outcomes for women in academia. However, the studies provide limited high-quality evidence to provide information for academic institutions in terms of the best way to improve outcomes for women in academia. The success of an intervention appears to be undermined when it relies on the additional labour of those it is intending to support (ie, 'bottom-up' approaches). As such, academic institutions should consider and evaluate the efficacy of 'top-down' interventions that start with change in practice of higher management.
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.