A tool to assess sex-gender when selecting health research projects

How to carry out participatory research that takes account of sex and gender issues: a scoping review of guidelines targeting health inequities

OBJECTIVE

Conducting participatory research (PR) aimed at improving health implies considering inequitable power relations, including those related to sex/gender (S/G). This necessitates specific skills and methods and may be challenging especially since guidelines are scarce. Our objective was to perform a scoping review to provide a typology of existing guidelines for researchers on how to take account of S/G in the context of PR in public health, with a focus on occupational and environmental health.

METHODS

All steps of the research were conducted with the collaboration of an advisory committee, following PR principles. Nineteen documents were retained from 513 references identified in nine scientific databases and grey literature between 2000 and 2020. Data on recommendations were extracted and coded qualitatively. Cluster analysis based on similarities in recommendations proposed in the documents identified four types: (1) empowerment-centered; (2) concrete action-centered; (3) macrosystem-centered; and (4) stakeholder-centered.

SYNTHESIS

Many sources gave pointers on how to include S/G during data collection and analysis or during the dissemination of findings, but there was a dearth of suggestions for building partnerships with stakeholders and producing sustainable S/G sociopolitical transformations. Occupational health PR showed less similarities with other public health subfields including environmental health PR. Power relationships with workplace stakeholders generated specific obstacles related to S/G integration that require further attention. Intersectionality and reflexive practices emerged as overarching themes.

CONCLUSION

This review provides helpful guidelines to researchers at different stages of planning PR, ranging from familiarizing themselves with S/G approaches to anticipating difficulties in their ongoing S/G-transformative PR.

Analysis of gender perspective in the use of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses: A systematic review

AIM

To identify, describe and analyse the gender perspective in the use of the diagnoses contained in the NANDA-I taxonomy in observational studies published in the scientific literature.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review has been conducted spanning from 2002 to 2020. The most frequent NANDA-I nursing diagnoses in care plans reported in observational studies, and the defining characteristics and related factors identified for men and women have been described. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-P) have guided our research. The main findings have been summarized using a descriptive narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles were included in our study. With regard to gender analysis, the percentage of men and women that make up the sample were not specified in all articles, and half of the studies did not identify gender either in the diagnosis label or in their defining characteristics or related factors. Based on the reviewed articles, gender perspectives are not systematically incorporated in the use of the NANDA-I diagnosis. Therefore, gender biases in its use in the scientific literature may exist. This situation poses barriers to determine the health responses that are different and unequal between women and men.

Gender-based inequalities in the effects of housing on health: A critical review

Gender and its power relations are produced and reproduced in the housing sphere, leading to inequalities in living conditions and, therefore, in gender inequalities in health outcomes. The aim of the study is to review the published literature on gender, housing and health, to critically evaluate the incorporation of the gender perspective, and to incorporate this perspective into the conceptual framework of housing and health. Using the critical review method, we conducted a literature review in MEDLINE, Scopus, WOS and Redalyc, without restriction of publication date, including studies published up to October 2020. We analyzed the gender perspective in health research using the Gender Perspective in Health Research Questionnaire and described the results according to main housing dimensions. Of the 20,988 articles identified, we selected 90 for full-text analysis, of which 18 were included in the feminist research category, 27 in gender-sensitive, 31 in sex difference and 14 did not include any gender perspective. Regarding the association between housing and health, most studies analyzed affordability (36%) and physical conditions (32%), and trends in health outcomes by gender varied according to each exposure analyzed, although overall the effects were worse for women and non-binary or trans people. To date, very few studies consider the gender perspective. It is urgent to address gender relations in housing and health studies, and to open an interdisciplinary and intersectoral agenda to address this complex relationship.

Gender Perspective in Research on Interventions in Children with Experiences of Parental Gender-Based Violence: Application of GPIHR Criteria

The aim of this study was to analyse the inclusion of a gender perspective (GP) in scientific production on interventions for a reduction in psychological distress in children who have experienced parental gender-based violence (CEXPGBV). To achieve this, a review of publications was carried out in the Web of Science, EBSCOhost, ProQuest and Cochrane Library databases. A total of 3418 records were found, and 44 items of research selected. For GP analysis, the questionnaire "Gender perspective in health research" (GPIHR) was applied and relationships with the terminology of violence were analysed, as well as the definition of term used, references to violence by men or received by women and the instruments used to assess these. Generally, the assessed studies do not contain a GP, since 70% of the GPIHR items were answered negatively. Likewise, 89% of research used general terms to refer to violence without referring to gender. These results show the importance of considering instruments such as GPIHR in both the planning and development of future research in order to avoid possible gender bias.

Integrating the gender dimension in teaching, research content & knowledge and technology transfer: Validating the EFFORTI evaluation framework through three case studies in Europe

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research is one of the six European Research Area (ERA) priorities. Integrating the gender dimension in research content and teaching is one of its three objectives. It is arguably the objective where least progress has been made. In this article we contribute to the evidence base by applying the EFFORTI evaluation framework to three empirical case study interventions that aim to integrate the gender dimension in tertiary education and research content. Comparison is based on an evaluation of the design of the intervention, those factors that have enabled/ hindered its implementation as well as an assessment of outcomes and impacts. The findings of the case studies highlight the importance of design, specifically regarding resources, legal status and the definition and operationalisation of the gender concept. Implementation hinges on top-level institutional commitment and mainstreaming gender studies with support of a central unit and crucially gender competence. A lack of recognition and status of gender studies and subsequent innovations was seen to hamper implementation. Outcomes and impacts included an increased awareness and interest in gender, increased gender competence, a push towards gender equality regarding representation and organisational change as well as an improved accreditation process and more and better research.

Essential metrics for assessing sex & gender integration in health research proposals involving human participants

Integrating sex and gender in health research is essential to produce the best possible evidence to inform health care. Comprehensive integration of sex and gender requires considering these variables from the very beginning of the research process, starting at the proposal stage. To promote excellence in sex and gender integration, we have developed a set of metrics to assess the quality of sex and gender integration in research proposals. These metrics are designed to assist both researchers in developing proposals and reviewers in making funding decisions. We developed this tool through an iterative three-stage method involving 1) review of existing sex and gender integration resources and initial metrics design, 2) expert review and feedback via anonymous online survey (Likert scale and open-ended questions), and 3) analysis of feedback data and collective revision of the metrics. We received feedback on the initial metrics draft from 20 reviewers with expertise in conducting sex- and/or gender-based health research. The majority of reviewers responded positively to questions regarding the utility, clarity and completeness of the metrics, and all reviewers provided responses to open-ended questions about suggestions for improvements. Coding and analysis of responses identified three domains for improvement: clarifying terminology, refining content, and broadening applicability. Based on this analysis we revised the metrics into the Essential Metrics for Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Health Research Proposals Involving Human Participants, which outlines criteria for excellence within each proposal component and provides illustrative examples to support implementation. By enhancing the quality of sex and gender integration in proposals, the metrics will help to foster comprehensive, meaningful integration of sex and gender throughout each stage of the research process, resulting in better quality evidence to inform health care for all.

Incorporating sex, gender and vulnerable populations in a large multisite health research programme: The Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network as a case study

Background

Funders now frequently require that sex and gender be considered in research programmes, but provide little guidance about how this can be accomplished, especially in large research programmes. The purpose of this study is to present and evaluate a model for promoting sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) in a large health service research programme, the Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network (OPEN).

Methods

A mixed method study incorporating (1) team members’ critical reflection, (2) surveys (n = 37) and interviews (n = 23) at programme midpoint, and (3) an end-of-study survey in 2016 with OPEN research project teams (n = 6).

Results

Incorporating gender and vulnerable populations (GVP) as a cross-cutting theme, with a dedicated team and resources to promote GVP research across the programme, was effective and well received. Team members felt their knowledge was improved, and the programme produced several sex- and gender-related research outputs. Not all resources were well used, however, and better communication of the purposes and roles of the team could increase effectiveness.

Conclusions

The experience of OPEN suggests that dedicating resources for sex and gender research can be effective in promoting SGBA research, but that research programmes should also focus on communicating the importance of SGBA to their members.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0182-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Integrating and evaluating sex and gender in health research

Both sex (biological factors) and gender (socio-cultural factors) shape health. To produce the best possible health research evidence, it is essential to integrate sex and gender considerations throughout the research process. Despite growing recognition of the importance of these factors, progress towards sex and gender integration as standard practice has been both slow and uneven in health research. In this commentary, we examine the challenges of integrating sex and gender from the research perspective, as well as strategies that can be used by researchers, funders and journal editors to address these challenges. Barriers to the integration of sex and gender in health research include problems with inconsistent terminology, difficulties in applying the concepts of sex and gender, failure to recognise the impact of sex and gender, and challenges with data collection and datasets. We analyse these barriers as strategic points of intervention for improving the integration of sex and gender at all stages of the research process. To assess the relative success of these strategies in any given study, researchers, funders and journal editors would benefit from a tool to evaluate the quality of sex and gender integration in order to establish benchmarks in research excellence. These assessment tools are needed now amidst growing institutional recognition that both sex and gender are necessary elements for advancing the quality and utility of health research evidence.