P-735 Exploring representation and inclusivity in fertility and reproductive health societies’ leadership
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 eth...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Human reproduction (Oxford) 2022-06, Vol.37 (Supplement_1) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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.
ACOG: n = 5; W = 60%, M = 40%; Wh = 60%, B = 0%, A = 40%
ASRM: n = 17; W = 59%, M = 41%; Wh = 71%, B = 12%, A = 18%
BFS: n = 4; W = 50%, M = 50%; Wh = 75%, B = 0%, A = |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0268-1161 1460-2350 |
DOI: | 10.1093/humrep/deac107.681 |