Giving voice to Black women in science and medicine

Ighodaro, Eseosa T.; Littlejohn, Erica L.; Akhetuamhen, Adesuwa; Benson, Richard T.

doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01438-y

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Medical education is dominated by whiteness, which acts as a gatekeeper to keep Black women and others out. 26 This is evidenced by Black women’s accounts of oppression and exclusion in medical education 1,11,27,28 and publishing. 4,5,29 This power is also evident in the field’s reliance on biomedical inquiry, with its sole focus on the body to the exclusion of political and social structures 30 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Meanwhile, Black women are starting to share experiences of bias and discrimination in academic medicine. Responding to the inequitable treatment leading to the tragic death of Dr. Susan Moore, a Black physician who died of COVID-19 in 2020, a group of Black biomedical scientists and clinicians talked about the painful and exhausting experience of “putting [their own] lives on the line to still die disproportionately.” 10 Similarly, Balzora, a gastroenterologist in academic medicine, shared how she had “come to expect the suggestions of tokenism and otherness that affirm the racist and misogynistic beliefs of those who have encompassed my professional circles during my training and career.” 1(p1) She noted the pervasiveness of this “Intersectional discrimination” 1(p1) and urged those in medical education to “protect Black women.” 1(p1) In another recent commentary, Bajaj, Tu, and Stanford explored what they call the “racialised sexism” 11(p1398) Black women experience in academic medicine, having to “work twice as hard to get half as far” 11(p1398) without any safety net. They characterize this as the “Goldilocks dilemma: [Black women] are either insufficient and unsuitable or boastful and overdone–never just right”, 11(p1399) and if they speak up they are “caricatured as just another angry Black woman and dismissed as being unreasonable and melodramatic.” 11(p1399)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Black women in medical education publishing: Bibliometric and testimonio accounts using intersectionality methodology

Seide,

Maggio,

Artino

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Black women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination with bias from colleagues, patients, and institutions, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting their career progression. This study seeks to examine how epistemic oppression-reduced access to knowledge consumption and creation-manifests for Black women in medical education publishing. Methods: Adapting intersectionality methodology, we employed a bibliometric analysis of US-based journal articles published in 22 medical education journals between 2000 and 2020. Author race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed based on Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models to estimate the average effect of epistemic oppression on Black women, from 2000-2020, by both first author publications and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and medical subject headings. Results: The analytic sample consisted of 21,945 unique authors. Overall, Black authors average only 9.0% of the analytic sample, whereas white authors average 69.3% of the analytic sample. Taken together, the analysis reveals that white women and men dominate publications, with Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) publishing far fewer first and last authors papers. In addition, major Medical Subject Headings used by Black women authors reveal little overlap of eminent (highly ranked) topics within medical education. Discussion: This research underscores the underrepresentation and epistemic oppression of Black women in medical education publishing, stemming from several forms of epistemic injustice. To address these challenges, we advocate for changes within the publishing ecosystem to address these disparities, as we believe that dismantling these oppressive structures is imperative for achieving equity and inclusivity in academic medicine. Additionally, we believe that qualitative research is needed to complement these quantitative findings and provide a more holistic perspective on Black women's experiences in the publishing process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Black women in medical education publishing: Bibliometric and testimonio accounts using intersectionality methodology

Seide,

Maggio,

Artino

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Respondents highlighted a common sentiment of HDPs-many feel that the interpersonal relationship with the provider is not built on mutual respect. 47 This creates trust barriers, which, in turn, reduce care quality and utilization.…”

Section: Respondent Illustrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Health Equity in Neurologic Disorders and Stroke

Littlejohn,

Booker,

Chambers

et al. 2023

Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyze the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Request for Information (RFI) input from the public—including health care providers, researchers, patients, patient advocates, caregivers, advocacy organizations, professional societies, and private and academic stakeholders with an interest in health disparities (HDs) in neurologic disease. RFI questions were structured to solicit input on what stakeholders believe are neurologic disease HD research priorities, drivers of health inequity, and potential interventions. Furthermore, these stakeholder insights were examined within the context of contemporary scientific literature and research frameworks on health equity and health disparities. Background The NINDS published a RFI from March 31 to July 15, 2020. The RFI analysis presented here is part of a larger strategic planning process aimed to guide future NINDS efforts in neurologic disorder health equity (HE) research and training. The public commented on facilitators of HDs, populations that experience HDs (HDPs), potential interventions, and research opportunities related to HDs in neurologic disease and/or care in the United States across the lifespan. Responses were analyzed using qualitative methodology. Frequently suggested interventions were thematically clustered using the interpretive phenomenological analysis methodology and are presented in this article to provide a stakeholder-identified roadmap for advancing HE. Results Respondents identified socioecological factors as driving HDs in 89% of determinants reported. Stakeholder-reported HD determinants and subsequent interventions could be classified into the following conceptual categories: HDP neurospecialty care access, innovative HDP engagement and research inclusion strategies, and development of a well-trained clinician-scientist HD workforce. Clustering of the feedback from patient and patient-adjacent respondents (i.e., caretakers and patient advocates) highlighted the prevalence of patient-provider interpersonal factors and limited resources driving access-to-care barriers among their sentiments. Discussion Respondent sentiments suggest prioritization of social determinants of health (SDOH) research, shifting away from the common target of biological and behavioral themes addressed in the existing body of HE research provided by the stakeholder. Overall, respondents suggest focusing research prioritization on access to care, engagement across the HE research and care landscape, and HE workforce development.

show abstract

“…An embedded culture of women’s role as an exclusive family caregiver plays a pivotal role of young girls drop out after primary education ( Andres, 2011 ). The racial discrimination reinforces the issue especially when it comes to fair opportunities in funded scholarships, health equity and workforce infrastructure ( Ighodaro et al, 2021 ). In 2015, the African Union announced the Year of Women’s Empowerment and Development Towards Africa Agenda 2063.…”

Section: Non-western Women In Geneticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The History and Challenges of Women in Genetics: A Focus on Non-Western Women

Elbardisy

Abedalthagafi

2021

Front. Genet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Women in much of the world lack support for fundamental functions of a human life.” This truthful portrait was pointed out by Martha Nussbaum in her book “Introduction: Feminism & International Development.” Throughout history, gender inequality has been persistent in many aspects of life, including health and empowerment. Unfortunately, this inequality has not been excluded from the field of science. Perpetual assumption that women’s absence or restriction to secondary roles in various disciplines is an acceptable law of nature misrepresents women’s contribution to science and maintains hurdles for participation in the future. According to a recent UNESCO’s report, women make up only 30% of researchers worldwide. But despite all the obstacles, women made major contributions with discoveries that shaped the progress in many scientific fields. In the field of genetics, Rosalind Franklin is an example of unwittingly compromised women’s scientific achievements. Franklin was an expert in X-ray crystallography; her data, especially the “photo 51,” was critical to James Watson and Francis Crick along with their own data to publish the discovery of the double helix DNA structure in 1953. Her contribution was acknowledged posthumously in Watson’s memoir in 1968. Barbara McClintock was a 20th century American cytogeneticist who remains up to date the only woman receiving an unshared Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine. McClintock dedicated her work to cytogenetics and discovered the phenomenon of mobile genes. Her research was initially subjected to skepticism in the 1950s. It was not until the late 1960s that the community realized the significance of McClintock’s discovery. The history of science is occupied with a myriad of similar tales of such inspiring women that, after tremendous struggles, thrived and achieved breakthroughs in their respective fields. It is prominent our limited knowledge of women’s experience and struggle in science in non-western world. Addressing the stories of this outstanding minority is critical to expand the understanding of the gender disparity factors embedded in diverse cultures. In this article, we attempt to put the spotlight on some fascinating non-western women and their significant contributions to the field of genetics.

show abstract

Giving voice to Black women in science and medicine

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Black women in medical education publishing: Bibliometric and testimonio accounts using intersectionality methodology

Black women in medical education publishing: Bibliometric and testimonio accounts using intersectionality methodology

Advancing Health Equity in Neurologic Disorders and Stroke

The History and Challenges of Women in Genetics: A Focus on Non-Western Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About