Gender disparities in neuropsychological assessment research in drug abuse populations: A systematic review.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2315741
Alicia Ito Ford, Kirstien Minley, Josie Martin, Madeline Hudson, Kelsey Snider, Rigel Bacani, Riley Smith, Gunnar Phillips, Matt Vassar
{"title":"Gender disparities in neuropsychological assessment research in drug abuse populations: A systematic review.","authors":"Alicia Ito Ford, Kirstien Minley, Josie Martin, Madeline Hudson, Kelsey Snider, Rigel Bacani, Riley Smith, Gunnar Phillips, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2315741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To systematically review the literature on the neurocognitive effects of drug use to determine if there are significant gender differences. <b>Methods:</b> In April 2023, we conducted a broad search in MEDLINE (<i>via</i> PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for original research studies that used objective neuropsychological assessment to evaluate neurocognition in persons with drug use. Data extraction was performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. <b>Results:</b> Our initial search returned 22,430 records, of which 273 articles were included in our analysis. We found significant underrepresentation of women as participants in the studies. Twenty-one percent of studies had exclusively male participants; when women were included, they averaged only 23% of the sample. Only 49 studies sufficiently documented an analysis of their results by gender; due to the heterogeneity in study characteristics, no conclusions about cognitive differences between women and men could be made. <b>Conclusions:</b> Women are significantly underrepresented in the research on cognition in drug use. Increased efforts to include more women participants and consistent analysis and reporting of data for potential gender differences will be required to close this gap in knowledge, which may lead to improved substance abuse treatment approaches for women.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2315741","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the literature on the neurocognitive effects of drug use to determine if there are significant gender differences. Methods: In April 2023, we conducted a broad search in MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for original research studies that used objective neuropsychological assessment to evaluate neurocognition in persons with drug use. Data extraction was performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Our initial search returned 22,430 records, of which 273 articles were included in our analysis. We found significant underrepresentation of women as participants in the studies. Twenty-one percent of studies had exclusively male participants; when women were included, they averaged only 23% of the sample. Only 49 studies sufficiently documented an analysis of their results by gender; due to the heterogeneity in study characteristics, no conclusions about cognitive differences between women and men could be made. Conclusions: Women are significantly underrepresented in the research on cognition in drug use. Increased efforts to include more women participants and consistent analysis and reporting of data for potential gender differences will be required to close this gap in knowledge, which may lead to improved substance abuse treatment approaches for women.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药物滥用人群神经心理学评估研究中的性别差异:系统综述。
目的系统回顾有关吸毒对神经认知影响的文献,以确定是否存在显著的性别差异。2023 年 4 月,我们在 MEDLINE(通过 PubMed)、PsycINFO 和 Embase 中对使用客观神经心理学评估来评估吸毒者神经认知的原创研究进行了广泛检索。数据提取采用屏蔽、重复的方式进行。结果:我们的初步搜索返回了 22,430 条记录,其中 273 篇文章纳入了我们的分析。我们发现研究中女性参与者的比例明显偏低。21%的研究仅有男性参与者;当女性被纳入样本时,她们平均仅占样本的 23%。只有 49 项研究充分记录了按性别进行的结果分析;由于研究特征的异质性,我们无法就男女之间的认知差异得出结论。结论在有关吸毒认知的研究中,女性的代表性明显不足。要缩小这一知识差距,就必须加大力度纳入更多的女性参与者,并对潜在的性别差异进行一致的数据分析和报告,从而改进针对女性的药物滥用治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
期刊最新文献
Interpreting the direct- and derived-Trail Making Test scores in Argentinian children: regression-based norms, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, and practice effects. Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia. Neuropsychological normative standards for late career physicians. Naturalistic assessment of everyday multitasking in Parkinson's disease with and without mild cognitive impairment. Utility of learning ratio scores from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) Word List Memory Test in distinguishing patterns of cognitive decline in veterans referred for neuropsychological evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1