Gender and healthcare leadership: Addressing critical knowledge gaps by explicitly considering the gendered concept of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review of gender and healthcare leadership synthesized the barriers and facilitators at multiple levels employing a framework that integrates a specific focus on the concept of care. The 71 sources identified focus predominantly on barriers to women's leadership at the individual and team level and, to a lesser extent, at the organizational and system level. Facilitators tend to be presented as recommended actions than evaluated interventions. Healthcare leadership tends to ignore the gendered context of care elevating leaders who are least likely to provide such care. Where personal caregiving circumstances are considered, they are individualized, reflecting the literature in general. More critical analysis is needed to focus on women's experiences and how their gender can predetermine their success in achieving and being in leadership positions. Healthcare leadership researchers are encouraged to include gender and care-focused analyses and interventions to address the under-representation of women in healthcare leadership.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".