Gender Differences in Twitter Use and Influence Among Health Policy and Health Services Researchers

Abstract

number of clusters. Analyses were conducted in Stata SE 15 statistical package (StataCorp LLC). Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided P < .05.Results | Of the 781 households (0.63%) that could not automatically reenroll in Covered California because of insurer exit, unadjusted and adjusted reenrollment rates were 21.4% and 21.5%, respectively (Table ). Both the unadjusted and adjusted reenrollment rates among the 122 463 households with the option to automatically reenroll were 51.2%. Losing the option to automatically reenroll was associated with a 30percentage point decrease in enrollment both with adjusting for household characteristics (95% CI, 9.4%-52.0%; P < .001) and without (95% CI, 14.2%-46.8%; P < .001).Discussion | Elimination of automatic reenrollment would likely be associated with decreases in the number of enrollees who remain insured through the marketplaces. As an opt-out policy 3 similar to that used in other health insurance markets such as Medicaid, 2 automatic reenrollment may be associated with increases in continuity of coverage in the marketplaces by reducing administrative barriers to reenrollment.Although we found losing an automatic reenrollment option was associated with decreases in reenrollment, this association requires further study. The group that lost the automatic reenrollment option was relatively small. Households with different demographics or different experiences with insurers may have behaved differently if they had lost the option to automatically reenroll. Losing automatic reenrollment because of policy changes rather than insurer exit also may be associated with households behaving differently. Given the magnitude of our findings, it is critical that future studies continue investigating the association between automatic reenrollment and continuity of coverage.

The Gender Gap Tracker: Using Natural Language Processing to measure gender bias in media

“…In summary, the analyses in this section indicate that the bias towards quoting men seems to be strongest in articles written by men, a trend that has been observed in academic citations [ 79 – 83 ], Twitter mentions [ 84 ], including the Twitter circles of political journalists [ 85 ], and certainly in news articles [ 86 ]. Articles co-authored by a mix that includes male and female writers seem to contain a better balance of male and female sources of opinion; this observation points to collaboration between genders as a path towards closing the gender quote gap.…”

Tweeting from the Bench: Twitter and the Physician-Scientist Benefits and Challenges

“…Amongst more than 3000 health services researchers, women had less influence on Twitter than men with half of the mean number of followers, and fewer mean likes and retweets per year. These differences were largest amongst full professors and similar across the distribution of number of tweets [ 22 •]. Further investigation is needed into whether these inequities exist for other underrepresented minorities on Twitter.…”

Social Media—The Next Glass Ceiling?

“…Then we began to ask why endoscopic screening has an adverse preventative effect of gastric cancer incidence on the study populations. From our perspective, most enrolled studies were retrospectively conducted, and in some studies patients were allowed to choose which group to attend by themselves 7 or according to their physicians' suggestion, 5 which might cause a substantial selection bias (symptomatic patients might be more likely to attend the endoscopic group). Moreover, endoscopic screening might detect neoplastic lesions at earlier stages compared with radiographically tested and never-screened people, and the protective value of endoscopic screening might be greatly underestimated in such conditions.…”

“…5,6 This study extends the gender bias and academic inequity into the medical realm of SoMe. 7 The dearth of women gastroenterologists deemed trustworthy "SoMe influencers" as a result of the software program and factors determined to be standards for academic success both expands and entrenches gender bias in a growing public medium for consumption by peers, patients, lay people, and the media.We therefore call on the authors and the editors of Gastroenterology to rethink how success in the field of medicine ought to be evaluated and measured, specifically as it encompasses the SoMe platform, in the following ways.…”