The Neurocritical Care Society Gender Parity Analysis in Grants and Recognition Awards

Shraddha Mainali, Asma M. Moheet, Victoria A. McCredie, Sarah Livesay, Jody Manners, Denise H. Rhoney, Susanne Muehlschlegel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Several recent studies across the field of medicine have indicated gender disparity in the reception of prestigious awards and research grants, placing women in medicine at a distinct disadvantage. Gender disparity has been observed in neurology, critical care medicine and within various professional societies. In this study, we have examined the longitudinal trends of gender parity in awards and grants within the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all available data longitudinally from 2004, when NCS first granted awards through 2019. We used self-identified gender in the membership roster to record gender for each individual. For individuals without recorded gender, we used a previously validated double verification method using a systematic web-based search. We collected data on six awards distributed by the NCS and divided these awards into two main categories: (1) scientific category: (a) Christine Wijman Young Investigator Award; (b) Best Scientific Abstract Award; (c) Fellowship Grant; (d) INCLINE Grant; and (2) non-scientific category: (a) Travel Grant; and (b) Presidential Citation. Available data were analyzed to evaluate longitudinal trends in awards using descriptive statistics and simple or multiple linear regression analyses, as appropriate. Results: A total of 445 awards were granted between the years 2004 and 2019. Thirty-six awards were in the scientific category, while 409 awards were in the non-scientific category. Only 8% of women received NCS awards in the scientific awards category, whereas 44% of women received an award in the non-scientific category. Most notable in the scientific category are the Best Scientific Abstract Award and the Fellowship Grant, in which no woman has ever received an award to date, compared to 18 men between both awards. In contrast, women are well represented in the non-scientific awards category with an average of 5% increase per year in the number of women awardees. Conclusions: Our data reveal gender disparity, mainly for scientific or research awards. Prompt evaluation of the cause and further actions to address gender disparity in NCS grants and recognition awards is needed to establish gender equity in this area.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalNeurocritical Care
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2021
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Disparity in awards
  • Disparity in grants
  • Gender discrimination
  • Gender gap
  • Gender parity
  • Neurocritical care
  • Women in medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Neurocritical Care Society Gender Parity Analysis in Grants and Recognition Awards'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this