ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
The Gender of COVID-19 Experts in Newspaper Articles: a Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How the heart team is portrayed in online news.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Gender Equity and Diversity in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: We Must Do Better.Journal of pediatric intensive care · 2024Article
- Overall and COVID-19-specific citation impact of highly visible COVID-19 media experts: bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
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
backgroundPre-existing gender-based disparities in academia may have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Being cited as an expert source in newspaper articles about COVID-19 may increase an individual's research or leadership profile. In addition, visibility in a newspaper article is an important component of representation in academia.
objectiveTo determine whether women were underrepresented as COVID-19 expert sources in print newspapers in the USA.
designWe undertook a cross-sectional study of English-language newspaper articles that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and that were published in the top 10 most widely read newspapers in the USA between April 1 and April 15, 2020. MAIN MEASURES: We extracted the names of all people cited as expert sources and categorized the gender of each expert source based on pronoun usage within the article or on a business, university, or organization website. The professional role of each expert was assigned based on their description in the article. KEY
resultsOf 2297 expert sources identified, 35.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.9-37.8%; n = 824) were women and 63.7% were men (95% CI 61.8-65.7%; n = 1464). This result was similar when considering unique experts in each newspaper and for all included newspapers; of the 1738 unique experts per newspaper, 34.6% were women (95% CI 32.3-36.8%; n = 601), and of the 1593 unique experts in all newspapers, 36.5% were women (95% CI 34.1-38.9%; n = 581). Of articles with multiple experts referenced (n = 374), 102 cited only men experts (27.3%) and 44 cited only women experts (11.8%). Women were underrepresented as experts as Healthcare Workers and Professionals, Non-STEM Experts, Public Health Leaders, and STEM Scientists. There were no differences in the proportion of women experts between newspapers or between different regions of the USA.
conclusionsAltogether, our findings support that men academics outnumber women as COVID-19 experts in newspaper articles.
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.