Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Critical Reflections on Conducting Qualitative Health Research During COVID-19: The Lived Experiences of a Cohort of Postgraduate Students in a South African University.

COVID-19 ushered in public health guidelines restricting face-to-face contact and movement, and encouraging social distancing, all of which had implications for conducting field-based research during the pandemic. For qualitative researchers, this meant adapting conventional face-to-face methods and resorting to virtual variations of the same in adherence to stipulated COVID-19 health protocols. Virtual qualitative research introduced new concerns and logistical challenges. This paper presents critical reflections on experiences of conducting qualitative research during the pandemic, from the perspectives of a cohort of postgraduate fellows. A critical reflection framework was utilised to explore fellows experiences and meanings ascribed to their experiences. The research findings illustrate three overarching processes which, in turn, shaped ways of thinking, doing and being. First, explicating tacit assumptions about their anticipated research journeys and interrogating these. Second, shifts in power differentials demonstrated by role reversal between researchers and participants, and between fellows and supervisors as they re-negotiated their positionalities in virtual research spaces. Third, context specific sense-making, in which - narrative accounts support the notion of knowledge as a social construct. Our findings have important implications for qualitative research practice. Our study documents methodological nuances and social implications of conducting qualitative research during COVID-19 and in a-South African context. In addition, our study exemplifies the use of critical reflection in qualitative research practice in the specific context of postgraduate academic research. Further, our study illustrates how the use of technology shapes qualitative research protocol development, data collection and analysis phases.

Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021.

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada's health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public-private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.