↓ Skip to main content

Closing the gender leadership gap: a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 732)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
275 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Closing the gender leadership gap: a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union
Published in
Human Resources for Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0175-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Kuhlmann, Pavel V. Ovseiko, Christine Kurmeyer, Karin Gutiérrez-Lobos, Sandra Steinböck, Mia von Knorring, Alastair M. Buchan, Mats Brommels

Abstract

Women's participation in medicine and the need for gender equality in healthcare are increasingly recognised, yet little attention is paid to leadership and management positions in large publicly funded academic health centres. This study illustrates such a need, taking the case of four large European centres: Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Germany), Karolinska Institutet (Sweden), Medizinische Universität Wien (Austria), and Oxford Academic Health Science Centre (United Kingdom). The percentage of female medical students and doctors in all four countries is now well within the 40-60% gender balance zone. Women are less well represented among specialists and remain significantly under-represented among senior doctors and full professors. All four centres have made progress in closing the gender leadership gap on boards and other top-level decision-making bodies, but a gender leadership gap remains relevant. The level of achieved gender balance varies significantly between the centres and largely mirrors country-specific welfare state models, with more equal gender relations in Sweden than in the other countries. Notably, there are also similar trends across countries and centres: gender inequality is stronger within academic enterprises than within hospital enterprises and stronger in middle management than at the top level. These novel findings reveal fissures in the 'glass ceiling' effects at top-level management, while the barriers for women shift to middle-level management and remain strong in academic positions. The uneven shifts in the leadership gap are highly relevant and have policy implications. Setting gender balance objectives exclusively for top-level decision-making bodies may not effectively promote a wider goal of gender equality. Academic health centres should pay greater attention to gender equality as an issue of organisational performance and good leadership at all levels of management, with particular attention to academic enterprises and newly created management structures. Developing comprehensive gender-sensitive health workforce monitoring systems and comparing progress across academic health centres in Europe could help to identify the gender leadership gap and utilise health human resources more effectively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 275 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Master 19 21%
Unspecified 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Unspecified 17 18%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Other 20 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 184. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#73,299
of 13,500,278 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#2
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,967
of 373,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.