"'Academic' is a dirty word": intended impact pathways of an emerging academic health centre in tropical regional Australia

Background: The Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre (TAAHC) is being established in northern Queensland across a vast rural geography. The study aim is to identify intended impact pathways and beneficiaries of TAAHC as well as experienced and anticipated challenges. Methodology: The study is an empirical case study nested within a comparative multi‐case study on academic health centres (AHCs). Data were collected from documents, observation, and interviews with 24 health system and university stakeholders. Intended impact pathways were identified abductively from analysis of aspirations and challenges. Results: Aspirations of TAAHC reflect an ultimate aim to improve the health of the northern Queensland population. Challenges were trust and communication, understanding value and return on investment, health system receptiveness to building a research culture, prioritising and influencing the research agenda, and structure of the health system. Discussion: The study identifies three interdependent transitions that comprise the main intended impact pathway in TAAHC. Stakeholders expected TAAHC to effect health systems change and improvement rather than drive discovery‐oriented academic research associated with AHCs elsewhere. Conclusion: The findings contribute to the empirical evidence base on the role of AHCs internationally and to ongoing initiatives to establish and resource AHCs in Australia

The population health role of academic health centres: a multiple-case exploratory study in Australia and England

Background: Academic health centres (AHCs) are organisations that aim to mobilise knowledge into practice by improving the responsiveness of health systems to emerging evidence. This study aims to explore the population health role of AHCs in Australia and England, where AHCs represent novel organisational forms. Methods: A multiple-case study design using qualitative methods was used to explore population health goals and activities in four discrete AHCs in both countries during 2017 and 2018. Data from 85 interviews with AHC leaders, clinicians and researchers, direct observation, and documentation were analysed within and across the cases. Results: Comparison across cases produced four cross-case themes: health care rather than population health; incremental rather than major health system change; different conceptions of “translation” and “innovation”; and unclear pathways to impact. The ability of the AHCs to define and enact a population health role was hindered during the study period by gaps in knowledge mobilisation strategies at a health system and policy level, the biomedical orientation of government designation schemes for AHCs in Australia and England, and competing expectations of the sovereign partner organisations in AHCs against a backdrop of limited operational resources. Discussion: The study identifies several institutional elements that are likely to be needed for AHCs in Australia and England to deliver on both internal and external expectations of their population health role

Gender equity in academic rheumatology, current status and potential for improvement: a cross-sectional study to inform an EULAR task force

OBJECTIVES Evidence on the current status of gender equity in academic rheumatology in Europe and potential for its improvement is limited. The EULAR convened a task force to obtain empirical evidence on the potential unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology. METHODS This cross-sectional study comprised three web-based surveys conducted in 2020 among: (1) EULAR scientific member society leaders, (2) EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET) members and (3) EULAR Council members. Statistics were descriptive with significance testing for male/female responses assessed by χ$^{2}$ test and t-test. RESULTS Data from EULAR scientific member societies in 13 countries indicated that there were disproportionately fewer women in academic rheumatology than in clinical rheumatology, and they tended to be under-represented in senior academic roles. From 324 responses of EULAR and EMEUNET members (24 countries), we detected no gender differences in leadership aspirations, self-efficacy in career advancement and work-life integration as well as the share of time spent on research, but there were gender differences in working hours and the levels of perceived gender discrimination and sexual harassment. There were gender differences in the ranking of 7 of 26 factors impacting career advancement and of 8 of 24 potential interventions to aid career advancement. CONCLUSIONS There are gender differences in career advancement in academic rheumatology. The study informs a EULAR task force developing a framework of potential interventions to accelerate gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre : a qualitative study.

Background: The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of women’s advancement and leadership. To explore both women’s and men’s perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. Methods: Thematic analysis of data from two research projects: 53 GE survey respondents’ free-text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi-structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. Results: Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt that current markers of achievement were not equitable to women, as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC-specific organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE. Conclusions: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women’s career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion

a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union

Background Women’s participation in medicine and the need for gender equality in healthcare are increasingly recognised, yet little attention is paid to leadership and management positions in large publicly funded academic health centres. This study illustrates such a need, taking the case of four large European centres: Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Germany), Karolinska Institutet (Sweden), Medizinische Universität Wien (Austria), and Oxford Academic Health Science Centre (United Kingdom). Case The percentage of female medical students and doctors in all four countries is now well within the 40–60% gender balance zone. Women are less well represented among specialists and remain significantly under-represented among senior doctors and full professors. All four centres have made progress in closing the gender leadership gap on boards and other top-level decision-making bodies, but a gender leadership gap remains relevant. The level of achieved gender balance varies significantly between the centres and largely mirrors country-specific welfare state models, with more equal gender relations in Sweden than in the other countries. Notably, there are also similar trends across countries and centres: gender inequality is stronger within academic enterprises than within hospital enterprises and stronger in middle management than at the top level. These novel findings reveal fissures in the ‘glass ceiling’ effects at top- level management, while the barriers for women shift to middle-level management and remain strong in academic positions. The uneven shifts in the leadership gap are highly relevant and have policy implications. Conclusion Setting gender balance objectives exclusively for top-level decision-making bodies may not effectively promote a wider goal of gender equality. Academic health centres should pay greater attention to gender equality as an issue of organisational performance and good leadership at all levels of management, with particular attention to academic enterprises and newly created management structures. Developing comprehensive gender-sensitive health workforce monitoring systems and comparing progress across academic health centres in Europe could help to identify the gender leadership gap and utilise health human resources more effectively

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 participatory action research approach to strengthening health managers’ capacity at district level in Eastern Uganda

BACKGROUND: Many approaches to improving health managers’ capacity in poor countries, particularly those pursued by external agencies, employ non-participatory approaches and often seek to circumvent (rather than strengthen) weak public management structures. This limits opportunities for strengthening local health managers’ capacity, improving resource utilisation and enhancing service delivery. This study explored the contribution of a participatory action research approach to strengthening health managers’ capacity in Eastern Uganda. METHODS: This was a qualitative study that used open-ended key informant interviews, combined with review of meeting minutes and observations to collect data. Both inductive and deductive thematic analysis was undertaken. The Competing Values Framework of organisational management functions guided the deductive process of analysis and the interpretation of the findings. The framework builds on four earlier models of management and regards them as complementary rather than conflicting, and identifies four managers’ capacities (collaborate, create, compete and control) by categorising them along two axes, one contrasting flexibility versus control and the other internal versus external organisational focus. RESULTS: The findings indicate that the participatory action research approach enhanced health managers’ capacity to collaborate with others, be creative, attain goals and review progress. The enablers included expanded interaction spaces, encouragement of flexibility, empowerment of local managers, and the promotion of reflection and accountability. Tension and conflict across different management functions was apparent; for example, while there was a need to collaborate, maintaining control over processes was also needed. These tensions meant that managers needed to learn to simultaneously draw upon and use different capacities as reflected by the Competing Values Framework in order to maximise their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Improved health manager capacity is essential if sustained improvements in health outcomes in lowincome countries are to be attained. The expansion of interaction spaces, encouragement of flexibility, empowerment of local managers, and the promotion of reflection and accountability were the key means by which participatory action research strengthened health managers’ capacity. The participatory approach to implementation therefore created opportunities to strengthen health managers’ capacity