Gender Parity in CERA Survey Submissions.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Katherine M Wright, Heather L Paladine, Miranda A Moore, Grace Shih, Santina J G Wheat
{"title":"Gender Parity in CERA Survey Submissions.","authors":"Katherine M Wright, Heather L Paladine, Miranda A Moore, Grace Shih, Santina J G Wheat","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2025.925429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) is a unique collaboration of academic family medicine organizations (Society of Teachers of Family Medicine [STFM], Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, Association of Departments of Family Medicine) that facilitates and improves educational research in family medicine. CERA conducts approximately five surveys per year, including residency program directors, clerkship directors, department chairs, and general membership. Members of these organizations propose modules of 10 questions for these surveys. Proposals are peer-reviewed, and the top proposals are incorporated, along with standardized demographic questions, into an omnibus survey. We sought to determine the impact of self-reported gender of the primary submitter on survey module acceptance rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore author characteristics and quantify dissemination efforts. We conducted ꭓ2 analyses to determine gender differences in proposal acceptance. We used the exact binomial test to compare proportions of women authors to the benchmark proportion of women in STFM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, women submitted 66% (460/699) of CERA survey module proposals and authored 65% of accepted CERA modules (157/241) with the highest proportion concentrated among Clerkship Surveys (73%, 40/55). The acceptance rate did not differ significantly by gender (χ2=0.07, df=1, P=.80). A total of 73.4% (177/241) of module authors went on to present or publish their findings; we found no significant differences in scholarly output by gender (χ2=0.70, df=1, P=.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings indicate that the CERA module submission process has been successful in achieving comparable acceptance rates for men and women submitters. Other specialties should consider a similar model as a means to support early career educational researchers, including women.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":"57 4","pages":"286-291"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12147696/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.925429","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) is a unique collaboration of academic family medicine organizations (Society of Teachers of Family Medicine [STFM], Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, Association of Departments of Family Medicine) that facilitates and improves educational research in family medicine. CERA conducts approximately five surveys per year, including residency program directors, clerkship directors, department chairs, and general membership. Members of these organizations propose modules of 10 questions for these surveys. Proposals are peer-reviewed, and the top proposals are incorporated, along with standardized demographic questions, into an omnibus survey. We sought to determine the impact of self-reported gender of the primary submitter on survey module acceptance rates.

Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore author characteristics and quantify dissemination efforts. We conducted ꭓ2 analyses to determine gender differences in proposal acceptance. We used the exact binomial test to compare proportions of women authors to the benchmark proportion of women in STFM.

Results: Overall, women submitted 66% (460/699) of CERA survey module proposals and authored 65% of accepted CERA modules (157/241) with the highest proportion concentrated among Clerkship Surveys (73%, 40/55). The acceptance rate did not differ significantly by gender (χ2=0.07, df=1, P=.80). A total of 73.4% (177/241) of module authors went on to present or publish their findings; we found no significant differences in scholarly output by gender (χ2=0.70, df=1, P=.41).

Conclusions: These findings indicate that the CERA module submission process has been successful in achieving comparable acceptance rates for men and women submitters. Other specialties should consider a similar model as a means to support early career educational researchers, including women.

环境评估调查意见书中的性别平等。
背景和目标:学术家庭医学教育研究联盟理事会(CERA)是学术家庭医学组织(家庭医学教师协会[STFM],家庭医学住院医师协会,北美初级保健研究小组,家庭医学部门协会)的独特合作,促进和改善家庭医学的教育研究。CERA每年大约进行五次调查,调查对象包括住院医师项目主任、见习主任、系主任和普通会员。这些组织的成员为这些调查提出了10个问题的模块。提案经过同行评审,最优秀的提案与标准化的人口统计问题一起被纳入综合调查。我们试图确定主要提交者自我报告的性别对调查模块接受率的影响。方法:我们进行文献计量学分析,探讨作者特征并量化传播努力。我们进行了ꭓ2分析,以确定在接受求婚方面的性别差异。我们使用精确的二项检验来比较女性作者的比例与STFM中女性的基准比例。结果:总体而言,女性提交了66%(460/699)的CERA调查模块提案,并撰写了65%的被接受的CERA模块(157/241),其中最高比例集中在职员调查中(73%,40/55)。不同性别的接受率差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.07, df=1, P= 0.80)。共有73.4%(177/241)的模块作者继续展示或发表他们的发现;我们发现学术产出在性别上没有显著差异(χ2=0.70, df=1, P= 0.41)。结论:这些发现表明,CERA模块提交过程成功地实现了男性和女性提交者可比较的接受率。其他专业应考虑采用类似的模式,作为支持包括妇女在内的早期职业教育研究人员的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信