4.7 Article

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown in a biomedical research campus: A gender perspective analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906072

关键词

COVID-19; gender bias; scientific production; lockdown; dependents

资金

  1. Germans Trias i Pujol Health Science Research Institute (IGTP)
  2. University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol (HUGTiP)
  3. IrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute
  4. Fundacio Lluita contra les Infeccioses (FLI)
  5. Center d'Estudis Epidemiologics sobre les Infeccions de Transmissio Sexual i Sida de Catalunya (CEEISCAT)
  6. Institut Catala d'Oncologia (ICO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The survey revealed gender differences in the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on scientific activities, with female researchers performing more invisible tasks and experiencing greater mental health impacts.
From March to September 2020, researchers working at a biomedical scientific campus in Spain faced two lockdowns and various mobility restrictions that affected their social and professional lifestyles. The working group Women in Science, which acts as an independent observatory of scientific gender inequalities on campus launched an online survey to assess the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on scientific activity, domestic and caregiving tasks, and psychological status. The survey revealed differences in scientific performance by gender: while male researchers participated in a larger number of scientific activities for career development, female researchers performed more invisible scientific tasks, including peer review or outreach activities. Mental impact was greater in researchers caring for children or dependents, and this was aggravated for women. Results spot a disproportionate impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on female scientific career development, and urges for equity measures to mitigate the consequences of an increase in the gender gap in biomedical sciences for current and future pandemics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据