Experiences of those Taking Part in the BeeZee Bodies Family-Based Weight Management Intervention: A Qualitative Evaluation

The need for effective community, child weight management interventions continues. The BeeZee Bodies (BZB) family-based child weight management programme for 7-11-year-olds and 12-15–year-olds has been developed iteratively over five years, with quantitative and qualitative evaluations refining the programmes. The aim of this study was to present the experiences and opinions of those taking part in BZB programmes as part of a real world evaluation. Three focus groups, following a semi-structured protocol, were conducted with 20 participants (15 parents, 5 adolescents) 3 months post-intervention. Analyses were thematic, iterative and underpinned by Grounded Theory. Two themes emerged; (1) programme contents, (2) social interactions, with each sub-divided. Parents described increased appreciation of physical activity and dietary components, improvements in parenting and good relationships with personnel. A wide range of positive personal outcomes and changes within the family were perceived by parents and adolescents including: changes in physical activity take-up, eating habits, portion sizes, and an improved understanding of parenting an overweight child. The parenting skills element further enhanced the social cohesion fostered through attendance. There were opportunities to build new friendships for both parents and adolescents, and for parents to interact with their offspring in a different context, all of which supported behaviour change. The BZB programme was viewed by participants as successful and delivered by engaging personnel. Key strengths were social cohesion generated by including parenting sessions and inclusiveness of the physical activities on offer. BZB has been refined in response to qualitative evaluations and reviews and this process continues

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre : a bibliometric analysis

Objective: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. Setting: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Data: Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). Main outcome measures: Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. Results: Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. Conclusions: Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of endovascular thrombectomy compared with best medical treatment for acute ischemic stroke

Acute ischemic strokes involving occlusion of large vessels usually recanalize poorly following treatment with intravenous thrombolysis. Recent studies have shown higher recanalization and higher good outcome rates with endovascular therapy compared with best medical management alone. A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the benefits of all randomized controlled trials of endovascular thrombectomy where at least 25% of patients were treated with a thrombectomy device for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke compared with best medical treatment have yet to be performed

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for actio