Gender-sensitive reporting in medical research

The quality of gender and sex integration in scientific articles resulting from health research funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health 2004-2016

Aim

Integrating sex and gender into health research is critical to contributing to an ethical and more responsible science to address significant knowledge gaps, resulting in higher-quality evidence for all.

Subject and methods

Using the Essential Metrics for Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Health Research Proposals Involving Human Participants, we evaluate the quality of the integration of sex and gender in the 350 scientific articles produced by 144 health studies funded by the Department of Science and Technology of the Brazilian Ministry of Health between 2004 and 2016.

Results

The results show that clinical research articles are the type of studies that most frequently report on sex differences, while population and public health research articles most frequently report on gender differences. Analysis of the quality of sex and gender integration reveals low levels of qualification in the items of the literature review and research objectives (section 1) and participant recruitment and retention (section 2). However, the data collection tools, data analysis, and knowledge translation (section 3) items were rated as excellent and good.

Conclusion

Funding agencies and public institutions should recognize the importance of the integration of sex and gender at all stages of the research process, for instance, through awareness and training for researchers and reviewers, clear requirements, and the possibility to use metrics in the evaluations process.

Sex- and Gender-specific Analysis in Orthopaedic Studies

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic studies have reported the prevalence of injuries and outcomes after treatment in men and women patients, and although these differences have been recognized, few studies have evaluated for gender-specific injury patterns, disease progression, and treatment outcomes. A thorough understanding of gender-related differences is important to better individualize treatment and improve outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study, we sought (1) to determine the proportion of studies published in six orthopaedic journals that provided sex- or gender-specific analyses in 2016 and whether a difference was found in outcomes between men and women and (2) to evaluate whether this proportion varied across several orthopaedic subspecialty journals or between general orthopaedic journals and subspecialty journals.

METHODS

Six leading orthopaedic surgery journals were selected for review, including two general orthopaedic journals (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®) and four subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Spine). Journal issues published in the even-numbered months of 2016 were reviewed for clinical randomized controlled, cohort, and case-control studies in which women were a part of the study population. A total of 712 studies evaluating 24,607,597 patients met the criteria and were included in our review of publications from 2016. The selected studies were stratified based on whether gender was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who were women and the presence or absence of a gender-specific analysis. These endpoints were compared between journals.

RESULTS

Overall, 55% (13,565,773 of 24,607,597) of patients analyzed in these studies were women. Only 34% (241 of 712) of the studies published in 2016 included gender as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Of these, 39% (93 of 241) demonstrated a difference in the outcomes between patients who were men and women. The Journal of Arthroplasty had the greatest percentage of patients who were women (60%, 9,251,068 of 15,557,187) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine had the lowest (44%, 1,027,857 of 2,357,139; p < 0.001). Orthopaedic subspecialty journals tended to include a greater percentage of women (54%) than did general orthopaedic journals (50%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Currently, it is unclear what percentage of published orthopaedic studies should include a gender-specific analysis. In the current study, more than one-third of publications that performed a gender-specific analysis demonstrated a difference in outcomes between men and women, thereby emphasizing the need to determine when such an analysis is warranted.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Future studies should aim to determine when a gender-specific analysis is necessary to improve the management of orthopaedic injuries in men and women. It is important for investigators at the individual-study level to look for every opportunity to ensure that both men's and women's health needs are met by performing appropriate by-sex and by-gender analyses, but not to perform them when they are unnecessary or inappropriate.

How do outcomes compare between women and men living with HIV in Australia? An observational study

Background Gender differences vary across geographical settings and are poorly reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate demographics and clinical characteristics of participants from the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD), and to explore any differences between females and males in the rate of new clinical outcomes, as well as initial immunological and virological response to antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

Time to a new clinical end-point, all-cause mortality and/or AIDS illness was analysed using standard survival methods. Univariate and covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the time to plasma viral load suppression in all patients that initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) and time to switching from a first-line ART to a second-line ART regimen.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between females and males for the hazard of all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.51, 1.55), P=0.67], new AIDS illness [adjusted hazard ratio: 0.75 (0.38, 1.48), P=0.41] or a composite end-point [adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74 (0.45, 1.21), P=0.23]. Incident rates of all-cause mortality were similar between females and males; 1.14 (0.61, 1.95) vs 1.28 (1.12, 1.45) per 100 person years. Virological response to ART was similar for females and males when measured as time to viral suppression and/or time to virological failure.

CONCLUSION

This study supports current Australian HIV clinical care as providing equivalent standards of care for male and female HIV-positive patients. Future studies should compare ART-associated toxicity differences between ART-associated toxicity differences between men and women living with HIV in Australia.

Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research

BACKGROUND

Understanding sex and gender in health research can improve the quality of scholarship and enhance health outcomes. Funding agencies and academic journals are two key gatekeepers of knowledge production and dissemination, including whether and how sex/gender is incorporated into health research. Though attention has been paid to key issues and practices in accounting for sex/gender in health funding agencies and academic journals, to date, there has been no systematic analysis documenting whether and how agencies and journals require attention to sex/gender, what conceptual explanations and practical guidance are given for such inclusion, and whether existing practices reflect the reality that sex/gender cannot be separated from other axes of inequality.

METHODS

Our research systematically examines official statements about sex/gender inclusion from 45 national-level funding agencies that fund health research across 36 countries (covering the regions of the EU and associated countries, North America, and Australia) and from ten top-ranking general health (the top five in "science" and the top five in "social science") and ten sex- and/or gender-related health journals. We explore the extent to which agencies and journals require inclusion of sex/gender considerations and to what extent existing strategies reflect state of the art understandings of sex/gender, including intersectional perspectives.

RESULTS

The research highlights the following: (a) there is no consistency in whether sex/gender are mentioned in funding and publishing guidelines; (b) there is wide variation in how sex/gender are conceptualized and how researchers are asked to address the inclusion/exclusion of sex/gender in research; (c) funding agencies tend to prioritize male/female equality in research teams and funding outcomes over considerations of sex/gender in research content and knowledge production; and (d) with very few exceptions, agency and journal criteria fail to recognize the complexity of sex/gender, including the intersection of sex/gender with other key factors that shape health.

CONCLUSIONS

The conceptualization and integration of sex/gender needs to better capture the interacting and complex factors that shape health-an imperative that can be informed by an intersectional approach. This can strengthen current efforts to advance scientific excellence in the production and reporting of research. We provide recommendations and supporting questions to strengthen consideration of sex/gender in policies and practices of health journals and funding agencies.

Follow YOUR Heart: development of an evidence-based campaign empowering older women with HIV to participate in a large-scale cardiovascular disease prevention trial

BACKGROUND

Women's under-representation in HIV and cardiovascular disease (CVD) research suggests a need for novel strategies to ensure robust representation of women in HIV-associated CVD research.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit perspectives on CVD research participation among a community-sample of women with or at risk for HIV, and to apply acquired insights toward the development of an evidence-based campaign empowering older women with HIV to participate in a large-scale CVD prevention trial.

METHODS

In a community-based setting, we surveyed 40 women with or at risk for HIV about factors which might facilitate or impede engagement in CVD research. We applied insights derived from these surveys into the development of the Follow YOUR Heart campaign, educating women about HIV-associated CVD and empowering them to learn more about a multi-site HIV-associated CVD prevention trial: REPRIEVE.

RESULTS

Endorsed best methods for learning about a CVD research study included peer-to-peer communication (54%), provider communication (46%) and video-based communication (39%). Top endorsed non-monetary reasons for participating in research related to gaining information (63%) and helping others (47%). Top endorsed reasons for not participating related to lack of knowledge about studies (29%) and lack of request to participate (29%). Based on survey results, the REPRIEVE Follow YOUR Heart campaign was developed. Interwoven campaign components (print materials, video, web presence) offer provider-based information/knowledge, peer-to-peer communication, and empowerment to learn more. Campaign components reflect women's self-identified motivations for research participation - education and altruism.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigation of factors influencing women's participation in HIV-associated CVD research may be usefully applied to develop evidence-based strategies for enhancing women's enrollment in disease-specific large-scale trials. If proven efficacious, such strategies may enhance conduct of large-scale research studies across disciplines.

Pregnant women with HIV in rural Nigeria have higher rates of antiretroviral treatment initiation, but similar loss to follow-up as non-pregnant women and men

BACKGROUND

We examined antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and retention by sex and pregnancy status in rural Nigeria.

METHODS

We studied HIV-infected ART-naïve patients aged ≥15 years entering care from June 2009 to September 2013. We calculated the probability of early ART initiation and cumulative incidence of loss to follow-up (LTFU) during the first year of ART, and examined the association between LTFU and sex/pregnancy using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The cohort included 3813 ART-naïve HIV-infected adults (2594 women [68.0%], 273 [11.8%] of them pregnant). The proportion of pregnant clients initiating ART within 90 days of enrollment (78.0%, 213/273) was higher than among non-pregnant women (54.3%,1261/2321) or men (53.0%, 650/1219), both p<0.001. Pregnant women initiated ART sooner than non-pregnant women and men (median [IQR] days from enrollment to ART initiation for pregnant women=7 days [0-21] vs 14 days [7-49] for non-pregnant women and 14 days [7-42] for men; p<0.001). Cumulative incidence of LTFU during the first year post-ART initiation was high and did not differ by sex and pregnancy status. Persons who were unemployed, bedridden, had higher CD4+ counts, and/or in earlier WHO clinical stages were more likely to be LTFU.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women with HIV in rural Nigeria were more likely to initiate ART but were no more likely to be retained in care. Our findings underscore the importance of effective retention strategies across all patient groups, regardless of sex and pregnancy status.

Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting

Attention to the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' is increasingly being recognized as contributing to better science through an augmented understanding of how these factors impact on health inequities and related health outcomes. However, the ongoing lack of conceptual clarity in how sex and gender constructs are used in both the design and reporting of health research studies remains problematic. Conceptual clarity among members of the health research community is central to ensuring the appropriate use of these concepts in a manner that can advance our understanding of the sex- and gender-based health implications of our research findings. During the past twenty-five years much progress has been made in reducing both sex and gender disparities in clinical research and, to a significant albeit lesser extent, in basic science research. Why, then, does there remain a lack of uptake of sex- and gender-specific reporting of health research findings in many health research journals? This question, we argue, has significant health equity implications across all pillars of health research, from biomedical and clinical research, through to health systems and population health.

Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact?

We analyzed the impact of a requirement introduced in December 2010 that all applicants to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research indicate whether their research designs accounted for sex or gender. We aimed to inform research policy by understanding the extent to which applicants across health research disciplines accounted for sex and gender. We conducted a descriptive statistical analysis to identify trends in application data from three research funding competitions (December 2010, June 2011, and December 2011) (N = 1459). We also conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of applicants' responses. Here we show that the proportion of applicants responding affirmatively to the questions on sex and gender increased over time (48% in December 2011, compared to 26% in December 2010). Biomedical researchers were least likely to report accounting for sex and gender. Analysis by discipline-specific peer review panel showed variation in the likelihood that a given panel will fund grants with a stated focus on sex or gender. These findings suggest that mandatory questions are one way of encouraging the uptake of sex and gender in health research, yet there remain persistent disparities across disciplines. These disparities represent opportunities for policy intervention by health research funders.

Caring for women living with HIV: gaps in the evidence

Introduction

In the management of HIV, women and men generally undergo the same treatment pathway, with gender differences being given limited consideration. This is in spite of accumulating evidence that there are a number of potential differences between women and men which may affect response to treatment, pharmacokinetics, toxicities and coping. There are also notable psychological, behavioural, social and structural factors that may have a unique impact on women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite our increasing knowledge of HIV and advances in treatment, there are significant gaps in the data relating specifically to women. One of the factors contributing to this situation is the under-representation of women in all aspects of HIV clinical research. Furthermore, there are clinical issues unique to women, including gynaecologic and breast diseases, menopause-related factors, contraception and other topics related to women's and sexual health.

Methods

Using scoping review methodology, articles from the literature from 1980 to 2012 were identified using appropriate MeSH headings reflecting the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. Titles and abstracts were scanned to determine whether they were relevant to non-reproductive health in WLWH, and papers meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed.

Results

This review summarizes our current knowledge of the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. It suggests that there are a number of gender differences in disease and treatment outcomes, and distinct women-specific issues, such as menopause and co-morbidities, that pose significant challenges to the care of WLWH.

Conclusions

Based on a review of this evidence, outstanding questions and areas where further studies are required to determine gender differences in the efficacy and safety of treatment and other clinical and psychological issues specifically affecting WLWH have been identified. Well-controlled and adequately powered clinical studies are essential to help provide answers to these questions and to contribute to activities aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of WLWH.