Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30779525›Full record

ArticleAnnals of global health2018

Advancing Women Leaders in Global Health: Getting to Solutions.

Cheryl A Moyer, Nauzley C Abedini, Jessica Youngblood, Zohray Talib, Tanvi Jayaraman, Mehr Manzoor, Heidi J Larson, Patricia J Garcia, Agnes Binagwaho, Katherine S Burke and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Cheryl A MoyerGlobal REACH and the Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1111 Catherine Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, US.
Nauzley C AbediniNational Clinician Scholars Program and Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, US.
Jessica YoungbloodGlobal REACh and the Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, US.
Zohray TalibGeorge Washington University, Reston VA, US.
Tanvi JayaramanStanford Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, US.
Mehr ManzoorWomen in Global Health and Tulane University, Louisiana, US.
Heidi J LarsonLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GB.
Patricia J GarciaCayetano Heredia University, School of Public Health, Lima, PE.
Agnes BinagwahoUniversity of Global Health Equity, Kigali, RW.
Katherine S BurkeStanford Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University, Stanford, US.
Michele BarryStanford Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford Universitz, Stanford, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen comprise 75% of the health workforce in many countries and the majority of students in academic global health tracks but are underrepresented in global health leadership. This study aimed to elucidate prevailing attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of women and men regarding opportunities and barriers for women's career advancement, as well as what can be done to address barriers going forward.

methodsThis was a convergent mixed-methods, cross-sectional, anonymous, online study of participants, applicants, and those who expressed an interest in the Women Leaders in Global Health Conference at Stanford University October 11-12, 2017. Respondents completed a 26-question survey regarding beliefs about barriers and solutions to addressing advancement for women in global health.

findings405 participants responded: 96.7% were female, 61.6% were aged 40 or under, 64.0% were originally from high-income countries. Regardless of age or country of origin, leading barriers were: lack of mentorship, challenges of balancing work and home, gender bias, and lack of assertiveness/confidence. Proposed solutions were categorized as individual or meta-level solutions and included senior women seeking junior women for mentorship and sponsorship, junior women pro-actively making their desire for leadership known, and institutions incentivizing mentorship and implementing targeted recruitment to improve diversity of leadership.

interpretationThis study is the first of its kind to attempt to quantify both the barriers to advancement for women leaders in global health as well as the potential solutions. While there is no shortage of barriers, we believe there is room for optimism. A new leadership paradigm that values diversity of thought and diversity of experience will benefit not only the marginalized groups that need to gain representation at the table, but ultimately the broader population who may benefit from new ways of approaching long-standing, intractable problems.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceLeadershipMentorsPhysicians, WomenAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFaculty, MedicalFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSexism

Identifiers

PMID30779525
PMCPMC6748298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.