ArticleScience & public policy2019
Investigating the US biomedical workforce: Gender, field of training, and retention.
Article in Science & public policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Coaching-Based Leadership Program for Women Postdoctoral Fellows at the National Cancer Institute that Cultivates Self-confidence and Persistence in STEMM.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Article
- Citizenship status and career self-efficacy: An intersectional study of biomedical trainees in the United States.PloS one · 2024Article
- Research productivity and training support for doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences.FASEB bioAdvances · 2023Article
- Addressing Burnout among Healthcare Technology Management Professionals.Biomedical instrumentation & technology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The biomedical research workforce plays a crucial role in fostering economic growth and improving public health through discoveries and innovations. This study fills a knowledge gap by providing a comprehensive portrait of this workforce and retention within it. A distinguishing feature is that we use an occupation-based definition which allows us to look 'backward' to field of training and assess the extent to which it has grown more interdisciplinary, and how this differs by gender. The analysis is conducted using restricted-use SESTAT data, the most comprehensive dataset on the scientific workforce in the USA, for the years 1993, 2003, and 2010. Among the findings, we identify differences in interdisciplinarity in training by gender, and these differences have widened. In the retention analysis, which focuses on the 7-year period, 2003-10, we find that retention is negatively and significantly associated with interdisciplinary training for women, but not for men.
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.