Doing better: eleven ways to improve the integration of sex and gender in health research proposals.

Robin Mason
{"title":"Doing better: eleven ways to improve the integration of sex and gender in health research proposals.","authors":"Robin Mason","doi":"10.1186/s41073-020-00102-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrating a sex and gender lens is increasingly recognized as important in health research studies. Past failures to adequately consider sex in drug development, for example, led to medications that were metabolized differently, proved harmful, or ineffective, for females. Including both males and females in study populations is important but not sufficient; health, access to healthcare, and treatment provided are also influenced by gender, the socially mediated roles, responsibilities, and behaviors of boys, girls, women and men. Despite understanding the relevance of sex and gender to health research, integrating this lens into study designs can still be challenging. Identified here, are nine opportunities to address sex and gender and thereby strengthen research proposals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ontario investigators were invited to submit a draft of their health research proposal to the Sex and Gender Research Support Service (SGRSS) at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario. The service works to build capacity on the integration of sex, gender, and other identity factors, in health research. Using the SAGER Guidelines and the METRICS for the Study of Sex and Gender in Human Participants as guides, proposals were reviewed to enhance their sex and gender considerations. Content analysis of the feedback provided these investigators was subsequently completed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly 100 hundred study proposals were reviewed and investigators provided with suggestions on how to enhance their proposal. Analyzing the feedback provided across the reviewed studies revealed commonly overlooked opportunities to elevate consideration of sex and gender. These were organized into nine suggestions to mirror the sections of a research proposal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Health researchers are often challenged on how to integrate a sex and gender lens into their work. Reviews completed across a range of health research studies show there are several commonly overlooked opportunities to do better in this regard. Nine ways to improve the integration of a sex and gender lens in health research proposals have been identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"5 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-020-00102-2","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00102-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Integrating a sex and gender lens is increasingly recognized as important in health research studies. Past failures to adequately consider sex in drug development, for example, led to medications that were metabolized differently, proved harmful, or ineffective, for females. Including both males and females in study populations is important but not sufficient; health, access to healthcare, and treatment provided are also influenced by gender, the socially mediated roles, responsibilities, and behaviors of boys, girls, women and men. Despite understanding the relevance of sex and gender to health research, integrating this lens into study designs can still be challenging. Identified here, are nine opportunities to address sex and gender and thereby strengthen research proposals.

Methods: Ontario investigators were invited to submit a draft of their health research proposal to the Sex and Gender Research Support Service (SGRSS) at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario. The service works to build capacity on the integration of sex, gender, and other identity factors, in health research. Using the SAGER Guidelines and the METRICS for the Study of Sex and Gender in Human Participants as guides, proposals were reviewed to enhance their sex and gender considerations. Content analysis of the feedback provided these investigators was subsequently completed.

Results: Nearly 100 hundred study proposals were reviewed and investigators provided with suggestions on how to enhance their proposal. Analyzing the feedback provided across the reviewed studies revealed commonly overlooked opportunities to elevate consideration of sex and gender. These were organized into nine suggestions to mirror the sections of a research proposal.

Conclusion: Health researchers are often challenged on how to integrate a sex and gender lens into their work. Reviews completed across a range of health research studies show there are several commonly overlooked opportunities to do better in this regard. Nine ways to improve the integration of a sex and gender lens in health research proposals have been identified.

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
做得更好:在卫生研究建议中改进性和社会性别整合的11种方法。
背景:整合性和社会性别视角在健康研究中越来越被认为是重要的。例如,过去在药物开发中没有充分考虑性别因素,导致药物代谢方式不同,对女性有害或无效。在研究人群中包括男性和女性很重要,但还不够;健康、获得保健的机会和所提供的治疗也受到性别、男孩、女孩、妇女和男子的社会中介角色、责任和行为的影响。尽管理解了性和社会性别与健康研究的相关性,但将这一视角整合到研究设计中仍然具有挑战性。这里列出了九个解决性别和社会性别问题的机会,从而加强了研究建议。方法:安大略省调查人员被邀请向安大略省多伦多市女子学院医院的性与性别研究支持服务(SGRSS)提交一份健康研究计划草案。该服务致力于在卫生研究中整合性别、社会性别和其他身份因素的能力建设。以SAGER指南和人类参与者性别和社会性别研究指标为指导,对建议进行了审查,以加强他们对性别和社会性别的考虑。随后完成了对这些调查人员提供的反馈的内容分析。结果:审查了近100份研究提案,并为研究者提供了如何改进提案的建议。分析所审查的研究提供的反馈,揭示了通常被忽视的提高对性别和社会性别的考虑的机会。这些建议被组织成九个建议,以反映研究计划的各个部分。结论:卫生研究人员经常面临如何将性和社会性别视角融入他们的工作的挑战。在一系列卫生研究中完成的审查表明,在这方面有几个通常被忽视的机会可以做得更好。已经确定了在卫生研究建议中改进性别和社会性别视角整合的九种方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
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