Look who’s talking?

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50(11) Instead of starting with what is in this months’ ANZJP, let’s look at who is in the journal. In total, 72 authors have contributed to this month’s reading; of these, 40% are women. Fifty percent of the Research and Review papers in the November ANZJP have a female first author this contrasts favourably with 37% of articles published in the six leading medical journals in 2014 (Filardo et al. 2016). However, we have a sample of six Research or Review papers, so the statistically minded will quickly recognize the need for a larger sample size. Trainees needing a scholarly project might think about looking at female first authorship in the ANZJP over the last year or two, assuming that first author publications are a valid measure of research participation. Of course, much research is also published in other journals, but there is no reason to expect a specific gender bias in publications in the ANZJP. And, the ANZJP might be a good reflection of the psychiatry research culture in Australasia. Looking at gender distribution in research grants and university academic appointments is another strategy, but does not include clinician researchers who are unwilling to commit to the current harsh grantfunded research environment. In 2015, across all categories of grants (not just mental health), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded 17% of grants with a female lead Chief Investigator and 18% of those with a male lead Chief Investigator. However, there were many more applications by men, so overall grants led by women were awarded 35% of the money. The NHMRC are careful to take into account career disruptions such as maternity leave, but even so these grant applications take a lot of work with a low probability of success. The average age of these chief investigators was 42.5 years for women and 46.8 years for men; this is a time of life when there are lots of competing priorities. The ANZJP provides scope for a range of contributions including non-randomized control trial (RCT) clinical research, observation and opinion, so is hopefully more inclusive. Furthermore, the clinical research, ideas and case observations contained in the ANZJP can often be readily translated into everyday psychiatric practice, leading to incremental improvements in clinical care. Based on the modest sample of this month’s ANZJP, men seem to be more opinionated or perhaps more confident in their opinions. The Debates, Editorials, Letters and Commentaries are much more likely to be led by men. Where do our authors come from? It’s encouraging that some research papers have authors from prestigious institutions in the United States, United Kingdom, Israel and Scandinavia. All these papers have co-authors with Australian affiliations, so they are the outcomes of successful international collaborations – a good sign for Australasian research. One of our authors is from the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, but as an Australasian Journal, it would be good to have more contributions from Aotearoa. Leske et al. (this issue) have undertaken a systematic review of interventions for Indigenous adults with mental and substance use disorders in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. New Zealand was well represented, with four New Zealand and four Australian studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Leske et al.’s review concludes that the evidence base is small and methodologically weak. Hunter (this issue) notes that Indigenous Australians experience a higher burden of mental ill health than the wider Australian population, and a New Zealand study by Kake et al. (2008) found a higher rate of schizophrenia in the Maori population, compared to the non-Maori. This is an area where much more research to develop, implement and evaluate effective interventions is needed on both sides of the Tasman. Oedegaard et al. (this issue) looked at culture-specific values, beliefs and practices in the care of patients with bipolar disorder, using interview data from 19 international experts on bipolar disorder. For many patients, access to medical care was very limited. Systems of financial reimbursement shaped their access to health care, and there was limited opportunity for long-term follow-up, psychotherapy and psychoeducation in some public health-care systems. Look who’s talking?