Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39905982›Full record

ReviewImmunology and cell biology2025

Global perspectives to enhance strategies for advancing women in healthcare and STEMM leadership.

Jessica G Borger, Rhea J Longley, Megan F Taylor, Ruben Motrich, Jennifer Ae Payne, Roslyn A Kemp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Immunology and cell biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Jessica G BorgerThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Rhea J LongleyThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Megan F TaylorThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2922-0379
Ruben MotrichFOCIS Center of Excellence Centro de Inmunología Clínica de Córdoba (CICC), Córdoba, Argentina.
Jennifer Ae PayneCuriosity Factory Limited, Surrey Hills, NSW, Australia.
Roslyn A KempDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9092-1150

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discourse surrounding gender equity has intensified recently, amplified by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the critical underrepresentation of women in leadership roles across various sectors including the media and healthcare. In medical research, this disparity is particularly pronounced, with women often excluded from senior positions despite their substantial presence in the workforce. This review seeks to explore the multifaceted issue of gender inequity in medical research leadership, examining the systemic barriers that women face, the socioeconomic factors that compound these challenges and the global variations in leadership representation of women. Diverse leadership teams are essential for fostering medical innovation, improving patient outcomes and ensuring that clinical trials and medical research are effective, inclusive and representative. The underrepresentation of women in leadership roles is not merely a matter of gender bias; it is intricately linked to socioeconomic factors that hinder their advancement. Women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face additional obstacles, such as limited access to education and professional networks, which further exacerbate their underrepresentation in leadership positions. Moreover, cultural and societal norms play a significant role in shaping the career trajectories of women. As a group of immunologists, including representatives of the International Union of Immunological Sciences (IUIS) Gender Equity Committee, we review the causes of these inequities. We examine the impact of gender-diverse leadership on pre-clinical and medical research, emphasizing the need for inclusive leadership to drive progress in medical research and resulting healthcare. Finally, the review proposes strategies for improving gender equity in medical research leadership, including policy changes, organizational initiatives and societal shifts. By addressing these critical issues, this review contributes to the ongoing efforts to promote gender equity in medical research, ultimately enhancing the quality and inclusiveness of scientific inquiry and its impact on healthcare delivery.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareGender EquityLeadershipSexismFemaleHumansSARS-CoV-2Socioeconomic FactorsequitygenderhealthcareleadershipSTEMM

Identifiers

PMID39905982
PMCPMC11884314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.