Gender equity of authorship in pulmonary medicine over the past decade.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparity in authorship broadly persists in medical literature, little is known about female authorship within pulmonary medicine. METHODS: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021 in 12 journals with the highest impact in pulmonary medicine was conducted. Only original research and review articles were included. Names of the first and last authors were extracted and their genders were identified using the Gender-API web. Female authorship was described by overall distribution and distribution by country/region/continent and journal. We compared the article citations by gender combinations, evaluated the trend in female authorship, and forecasted when parity for first and last authorship would be reached. We also conducted a systematic review of female authorship in clinical medicine. RESULTS: 14,875 articles were included, and the overall percentage of female first authors was higher than last authors (37.0% vs 22.2%, p<0.001). Asia had the lowest percentage of female first (27.6%) and last (15.2%) authors. The percentages of female first and last authors increased slightly over time, except for a rapid increase in the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Parity was predicted in 2046 for the first authors and 2059 for the last authors. Articles with male authors were cited more than articles with female authors. However, male-male collaborations significantly decreased, whereas female-female collaborations significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the slow improvement in female authorship over the past decade, there is still a substantial gender disparity in female first and last authorship in high-impact medical journals in pulmonary medicine.

Facilitators and barriers to teamworking and patient centeredness in multidisciplinary cancer teams: findings of a national study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are the standard means of making clinical decisions in surgical oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the views of MDT members regarding contribution to the MDT, representation of patients' views, and dealing with disagreements in MDT meetings-issues that affect clinical decision making, but have not previously been addressed. METHODS: Responses to open questions from a 2009 national survey of MDT members about effective MDT working in the United Kingdom were analyzed for content. Emergent themes were identified and tabulated, and verbatim quotes were extracted to validate and illustrate themes. RESULTS: Free-text responses from 1,636 MDT members were analyzed. Key themes were: (1) the importance of nontechnical skills, organizational support, and good relationships between team members for effective teamworking; (2) recording of disagreements (potentially sharing them with patients) and the importance of patient-centered information in relation to team decision making; (3) the central role of clinical nurse specialists as the patient's advocates, complementing the role of physicians in relation to patient centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: Developing team members' nontechnical skills and providing organizational support are necessary to help ensure that MDTs are delivering high-quality, patient-centered care. Recording dissent in decision making within the MDT is an important element, which should be defined further. The question of how best to represent the patient in MDT meetings also requires further exploration.