Gender differences in professional social networks use among critical care researchers

• Published in: Australian critical care Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 483 - 489
• Main Authors: Demailly, Zoé, Brulard, Geoffroy, Tamion, Fabienne, Veber, Benoit, Occhiali, Emilie, Clavier, Thomas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2024
• Subjects: Critical care; Gender; Medical research; Social media; Social network; Women; Women; Critical care; Medical research; Social network; Gender; Social media
• ISSN: 1036-7314; 1878-1721
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2023.04.003

Recent studies highlight that female anaesthesiology researchers have lower visibility on professional social networks (PSNs) than male researchers. The objective of this work was to compare the use of PSNs between women and men in critical care research. We included the first/last authors (FAs/LAs) among the most frequently cited articles in 2018 and 2019 in three critical care journals (Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Critical Care). We compared the use of three PSNs—Twitter, ResearchGate, and LinkedIn—between women and men in the FA/LA positions. We analysed 494 articles, which allowed us to include 426 FAs and 383 LAs. The use of a PSN was similar between women and men (Twitter: 35 vs. 31% FA p = 0.76, 38 vs. 31% LA p = 0.24; ResearchGate: 60 vs. 70% FA p = 0.06, 67 vs. 66% LA p = 0.95; LinkedIn: 54 vs. 56% FA p = 0.25, 68 vs. 64% LA p = 0.58; respectively). On ResearchGate, women had a lower reputation score (FA group 26.4 [19.5–31.5] vs. 34.8 [27.4–41.6], p < 0.01; LA group 38.5 [30.9–43.7] vs. 42.3 [37.6–46.4], p < 0.01) and fewer followers (FA group 28.5 [19–45] vs. 68.5 [72,5–657] p < 0.01; LA group 96.5 [43,8–258] vs. 178 [76.3–313.5] p = 0.02). Female researchers were FAs in 30% of the articles and LAs in 16%. In the field of critical care, the visibility of female researchers on the social networks dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.