The book Why Science Is Sexist, by Nicola Gaston, a physics professor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

WHY IS IT WORTH READING?

Nicola Gaston’s clearly written book provides an in-depth look at gender inequality in science. The author explores the barriers faced by women scientists and the consequences for scientific output.

In analyzing the historical and cultural origins of the problem, she highlights the influence of social norms, stereotypes, and institutional structures on women’s experiences and opportunities in science. Concrete examples illustrate how this inequality is manifested in practice, resulting in gaps in scientific research as a result of the lack of diversity in perspectives and approaches.

One major aspect addressed in the book is the role of unconscious bias in science. Gaston describes how the phenomenon can affect decisions and assessments, often resulting in disadvantages for women scientists and biased perceptions of their work. The book also offers suggestions on how to promote gender equity.

It is essential reading for anyone seeking to delve deeper into the issue of gender inequality in science and wishing to contribute to the creation of a more egalitarian, inclusive, and diverse scientific environment.

REFERENCE:

Why Science Is Sexist, Nicola Gaston (BWB, 2015).

*Fernanda Staniscuaski is a biologist, a professor at the Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), and founder of the Parent in Science project, created in 2017 with the aim of discussing parenting within the scientific environment in Brazil.

The opinion pieces do not necessarily represent the views of Science Arena or the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein.

O post Sexism in science apareceu primeiro em Science Arena.

With this scenario in mind, a group of Brazilian researchers conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the type of delivery and a woman’s satisfaction with her hospitalization. The results were published in the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation’s (FIOCRUZ) Reports in Public Health (CSP).

The cohort study used data from the study Born in Brazil, conducted in 2011, with 23,046 puerperal women from a random sample of hospitals. Data about the type of delivery—vaginal and cesarean—were collected before hospital discharge. Researchers selected 266 hospitals with over 500 childbirths per year registered with the Brazil Live Birth Information System (SINASC). The sample was stratified by Brazilian macroregions (North, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and South), municipality type (capital or not), and hospital administration (public, private, or mixed).

Each stratum had at least 450 puerperal women selected from five or more hospitals. In the first stage, researchers interviewed 24,200 women during their hospital stay for childbirth. Of these women, a total of 16,255 were contacted and reinterviewed by phone, on average 90 days after delivery.

Despite the increase in cesarean rates, studies conducted in countries with varying levels of development have shown that women generally prefer vaginal births. Cesarean sections, in turn, are preferred by multiparous women who have previously undergone this type of delivery and among those with private health insurance.

Preference for cesarean was associated with fear of pain, the perception that it is safer than vaginal delivery, previous negative experiences, the influence of healthcare professionals, friends and family, and limited access to information about the two types of delivery.

Childbirth as planned contributed to maternal satisfaction with hospitalization. The ability to participate in choosing the delivery method and other factors, such as hospital accessibility, adequate physical structure, the availability of medication and equipment, dignified, respectful, and courteous treatment, privacy and confidentiality in care, the availability of technically competent doctors and nurses (especially in emergency situations), mental and emotional support, and good childbirth outcomes were associated with greater satisfaction with healthcare services during childbirth.

On the other hand, the perception of intense pain, especially during labor induction, operative vaginal birth, emergency cesarean, and prolonged labor, were associated with a negative experience.

The study presented the following hypothesis: there should be no differences in maternal satisfaction with hospitalization as long as childbirth occurred as planned by the pregnant woman. What was proven: Brazilian hospital service users were equally satisfied with hospitalization for both vaginal and cesarean delivery.

The authors conclude that the type of delivery did not directly influence women’s satisfaction. The factors that most improved the experience were decision-making power, support received, and effective analgesia.

O post Maternal satisfaction with childbirth apareceu primeiro em Science Arena.