Résumé
Background: The level of representation of women in cardiology remains low compared to that of men, particularly in leadership positions. We evaluated gender disparity in the authorship of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines. Methods: All CCS guidelines from 2001-2020 were identified. Gender was assessed based on pronoun use in the biographies and social media of the authors. Only primary panel authors were included in our analysis. Stratified analyses were performed based on subspecialties. Results: A total of 76 guidelines were identified, with 1172 authors (26% women, 74% men, P < 0.0001), with no significant change in percentage of women authors over 2 decades, (37.1% in 2001, 36.3% in 2020, P = 0.34). Inclusion of women as authors occurred less frequently than inclusion of men in general cardiology guidelines (20.1% vs 79.9%, P < 0.0001) and all subspecialties—heart failure (36.4% vs 63.6%, P < 0.0001), interventional cardiology (12.6% vs 87.4%, P < 0.0001), electrophysiology (20.2% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001), and pediatric cardiology (41.7% vs 58.3%, P = 0.02). It was less likely for women to be a chair or cochair of a guideline writing committee, compared with men (20.1% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001). There were 609 unique authors (25.6% women, 74.4% men, P < 0.0001), 542 unique medical doctorate (MD) authors (20.7% women, 79.3% men, P < 0.0001), and 67 unique non-MD authors (65.7% women, 34.3% men, P = 0.0003). Conclusions: There is a persistent shortfall in the inclusion of women authors for CCS guidelines, which has not changed over time. Further efforts are required to promote women's inclusion in leadership roles, which may lead to authorship of the guidelines.
| Langue d'origine | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (de-à) | S12-S18 |
| Journal | CJC Open |
| Volume | 3 |
| Numéro de publication | 12 |
| DOI | |
| Statut de publication | Published - déc. 2021 |
Note bibliographique
Funding Information:The guidelines are written by content experts of specific cardiovascular topics. usually chosen from among those in the mid-career to senior faculty member stages. The authors are chosen to be part of a panel; typically, panel membership is for 2 years, which may explain the inclusion of authors on more than one guideline. 11 As women in cardiovascular medicine progress academically, they disproportionately lack opportunity, recognition, and promotion pathways. Also, as WIC progress further in their careers, the number of women colleagues decreases. The situation results in less support in the workplace, perpetuating a vicious cycle. 45 Burns et al. 46 assessed grant and personal award applications that were authored by women and submitted to the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The organization reported that fewer women submitted grant proposals (31.1%) and personal award (44.7%) applications, with women being 14% less likely to be funded when their research focused on circulatory and respiratory health. 44 More importantly, Witteman et al. investigated 23,918 Canadian Institute of Health Research grant applications and reported a significant gender gap in grant funding, attributable to a less favorable assessment of women as principal investigators, and not to the quality of the research proposal. 47 Encouraging women during the early career stage through peer mentoring may increase participation in research, grant writing/review, and authoring publications, thereby validating content expertise and increasing opportunities for leadership. Women who are established investigators as demonstrated by successful tri-council funding and publications, are often recognized as being “senior” enough to be invited to participate in or lead guideline writing committees. Such experience may also serve to improve gender representation on grant review committees and reduce potential biases in the grant review process. 47
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article