Engendering epidemiology

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) guidelines: explanation and elaboration

Over the past decade, two movements have profoundly changed the environment in which global health epidemiologists work: research integrity and research fairness. Both ought to be equally nurtured by global health epidemiologists who aim to produce high quality impactful research. Yet bridging between these two aspirations can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In the light of these reflections we have proposed the BRIDGE guidelines for the conduct of fair global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research. The guidelines follow the conduct of a study chronologically from the early stages of study preparation until the dissemination and communication of findings. They can be used as a checklist by research teams, funders and other stakeholders to ensure that a study is conducted in line with both research integrity and research fairness principles. In this paper we offer a detailed explanation for each item of the BRIDGE guidelines. We have focused on practical implementation issues, making this document most of interest to those who are actually conducting the epidemiological work.

Examples of sex/gender sensitivity in epidemiological research: results of an evaluation of original articles published in JECH 2006-2014

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, sex and gender biases have been identified in various areas of biomedical and public health research, leading to compromised validity of research findings. As a response, methodological requirements were developed but these are rarely translated into research practice. The aim of this study is to provide good practice examples of sex/gender sensitive health research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of research articles published in JECH between 2006 and 2014. An instrument was constructed to evaluate sex/gender sensitivity in four stages of the research process (background, study design, statistical analysis, discussion).

RESULTS

In total, 37 articles covering diverse topics were included. Thereof, 22 were evaluated as good practice example in at least one stage; two articles achieved highest ratings across all stages. Good examples of the background referred to available knowledge on sex/gender differences and sex/gender informed theoretical frameworks. Related to the study design, good examples calculated sample sizes to be able to detect sex/gender differences, selected sex/gender sensitive outcome/exposure indicators, or chose different cut-off values for male and female participants. Good examples of statistical analyses used interaction terms with sex/gender or different shapes of the estimated relationship for men and women. Examples of good discussions interpreted their findings related to social and biological explanatory models or questioned the statistical methods used to detect sex/gender differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified good practice examples may inspire researchers to critically reflect on the relevance of sex/gender issues of their studies and help them to translate methodological recommendations of sex/gender sensitivity into research practice.