P-735 Exploring representation and inclusivity in fertility and reproductive health societies’ leadership
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question How diverse is the board-level executive leadership of the leading fertility and reproductive health societies in Europe, Australia and North America? Summary answer There is good gender diversity among the reproductive health societies included in the study, with limited ethnic diversity. What is known already Reproductive health societies promote understanding and interest in reproductive biology and medicine. They are leading authorities, providing guidelines, opinions, and direction to practitioners, policy makers and the public. Membership on these societies’ board is a marker of influence and prestige. Many societies have clear Equality and Diversity Statement on their website, suggesting that they value representation of members from whom they obtain fees. This study presents a quantification of the executive leadership demographic diversity of major fertility and reproductive health societies in Europe, Australia and North America to evaluate diversity in governance. Study design, size, duration We conducted a review of the websites of ten leading fertility and reproductive health societies in the Europe, Australia and North America to quantity gender and ethnic diversity. Data analysis was conducted on the information obtained in January 2022. We included the executive leadership team /governing board members but excluded subgroup leaders or special interest group coordinators. Participants/materials, setting, methods Organisations reviewed include: American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists(ACOG), American Society for Reproductive Medicine(ASRM), British Fertility Society(BFS), Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society(CFAS), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology(ESHRE), The Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand(FSA), International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology(FIGO), The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists(RANZCOG), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada(SOGC). Main results and the role of chance Proportion for each demographic group at the time of the study are summarised below; where n = total number of board members; Gender: W= women, M= Men; ethnicity: Wh = White, B = Black and A = Asian. In total, the number of board level/executive leadership members, responsible for governance in the societies reviewed were 112. Gender diversity was 41% Men, 59% Women, while ethnic diversity was 82% White, 3% Black and 15% Asian. It is encouraging to see the gender parity in the executive leadership of the organisations review, there remains an important need to improve ethnic diversity in order to better represent the membership and wider community they serve. This has implications for role-modelling, equity, minimising the negative impact of groupthink and reaching/giving underrepresented group a voice. Limitations, reasons for caution Results presented are based on a snapshot at the time of review. Organisations periodically change leadership. Additionally, gender identification is based on self-identification in individual’s profile biography. Wider implications of the findings As reproductive health organisations continue make extensive contributions to the field, it is important for their leadership to represent the diversity of members and wider population they serve. There remains a need to move beyond diversity and equality statement to actively deploy policies and processes to improve and monitor representation. Trial registration number not applicable
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».