ArticleFamily medicine2025
Gender Parity in CERA Survey Submissions.
Article in Family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CERA as a Sustainable Driver of Family Medicine Research.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Connection, Commitment, and Community in Family Medicine.Family medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) is a unique collaboration of academic family medicine organizations (Society of Teachers of Family Medicine [STFM], Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, Association of Departments of Family Medicine) that facilitates and improves educational research in family medicine. CERA conducts approximately five surveys per year, including residency program directors, clerkship directors, department chairs, and general membership. Members of these organizations propose modules of 10 questions for these surveys. Proposals are peer-reviewed, and the top proposals are incorporated, along with standardized demographic questions, into an omnibus survey. We sought to determine the impact of self-reported gender of the primary submitter on survey module acceptance rates.
methodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore author characteristics and quantify dissemination efforts. We conducted ꭓ2 analyses to determine gender differences in proposal acceptance. We used the exact binomial test to compare proportions of women authors to the benchmark proportion of women in STFM.
resultsOverall, women submitted 66% (460/699) of CERA survey module proposals and authored 65% of accepted CERA modules (157/241) with the highest proportion concentrated among Clerkship Surveys (73%, 40/55). The acceptance rate did not differ significantly by gender (χ2=0.07, df=1, P=.80). A total of 73.4% (177/241) of module authors went on to present or publish their findings; we found no significant differences in scholarly output by gender (χ2=0.70, df=1, P=.41).
conclusionsThese findings indicate that the CERA module submission process has been successful in achieving comparable acceptance rates for men and women submitters. Other specialties should consider a similar model as a means to support early career educational researchers, including women.
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.