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

Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in Australian health and medical research, policy and practice

Sex and gender are inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice, leading to preventable disparities in health and wellbeing. Several global institutions, journals, and funding bodies have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting and the delivery of clinical care. However, according to recent evaluations, these policies have had limited impact on the inclusion of diverse research participants, adequate reporting of sex and gender data and reducing preventable inequities in access to, and quality provision of, healthcare. In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project aims to address sex and gender bias in health and medical research by (i) examining how sex and gender are currently considered in Australian research policy and practice; (ii) working with stakeholders to develop policy interventions; and (iii) understanding the wider impacts, including economic, of improved sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research. In this paper we describe the development of a theory of change (ToC) for the SGPMR project. The ToC evolved from a two-stage process consisting of key stakeholder interviews and a consultation event. The ToC aims to identify the pathways to impact from improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice, and highlight how key activities and policy levers can lead to improvements in clinical practice and health outcomes. In describing the development of the ToC, we present an entirely novel framework for outlining how sex and gender can be appropriately considered within the confines of health and medical research, policy and practice.

Integrating sex and gender into biomedical research requires policy and culture change

Most biomedical, health and care research does not adequately account for sex and gender dimensions of health and illness. Overlooking and disregarding the influence of sex and gender in research reduces scientific rigour and reproducibility, which leads to less effective treatments and worse health outcomes for all, particularly women and sex and gender diverse people. Historically, there has been minimal sex and gender policy innovation in UK medical research. To address this, stakeholders from across the UK research sector have been collaborating since spring 2023 to co-design a sex and gender policy framework to be implemented by research funders, as part of the MESSAGE (Medical Science Sex and Gender Equity) project. In the first Policy Lab, held in London in May 2023, 50 participants, including representatives from funding organisations, medical journals, regulators, clinicians, academics and people with lived experience, identified two key priorities for future action: 1) A whole system approach to policy change, and 2) Technical capacity-building and wider culture change efforts. In pursuing these priorities and collaborating cross-sectorally, UK stakeholders are engaged in an internationally innovative approach aimed at realising sustainable and impactful sex and gender policy change. Drawing on MESSAGE Policy Lab discussions, we set out key actions needed for the UK research sector to embed meaningful accounting for sex and gender as a new norm for research practice.

The relationship between gender and pharmacology

The part of sexuality in pharmacology research was not acknowledged, and it was not thought-out to be a determinant that could impact strength and disease. For decades research has mainly contained male, women and animals, leading to a lack of news about syndromes in females. Still, it is critical to guarantee equal likeness so that determine the security, influence, and resistance of healing agents for all individuals. The underrepresentation of female models in preclinical studies over various decades has surpassed to disparities in the understanding, disease, and treatment of ailments 'tween genders. The closeness of sexuality bias has happened recognized as a contributing determinant to the restricted interpretation and replicability of preclinical research. Many demands operation have stressed the significance of including sexuality as a organic changeable, and this view is acquire growing support. Regardless of important progress in incorporating more female models into preclinical studies, differences prevail contemporary. The current review focuses on the part of sexuality and common in biomedical research and, therefore, their potential function in pharmacology and analyze the potential risks guide.

The anti-gender threat: An ethical, democratic, and scientific imperative for NIH research/ers

Anti-gender campaigns in the United States and globally have promoted policies and legislation that significantly limit bodily autonomy for women, transgender, and nonbinary people. This attack on the human rights of women and gender-diverse communities not only reflects implicit and explicit bias but also detrimentally impacts population health and well-being. We outline the domestic and global rise of anti-gender campaigns and their deep historical connections to broader forms of discrimination and inequality to argue that there is an ethical, democratic, and scientific imperative to more critically center and contextualize gender in health research. While the inclusion of gender as a complex concept in research design, implementation, and dissemination is important, we emphasize that gender inequities must be understood as inextricable from other systems of discrimination and exclusion. To that end, this commentary outlines two actions: for researchers to advance critical approaches to gender as part of a broader landscape of discrimination, and for the US National Institutes of Health to integrate both sex and gender into funded research.

Standing on the shoulders of bias: lack of transparency and reporting of critical rigor characteristics in pain research

ABSTRACT

Rigorous experimental design with transparent reporting in biomedical science reduces risk of bias and allows for scientists to judge the quality of the research. Basic factors of rigor such as blinding, randomization, power analysis, and inclusion of both sexes impact the reproducibility by reducing experimental bias. We designed a systematic study to analyze basic factors of rigor, inclusion of sex, and whether data were analyzed or disaggregated by sex over the past 10 years in the journal PAIN . Studies that included humans reported randomization in 81%, blinding in 48%, and the use of a power analysis calculation in 27% over the past 10 years. Studies that included mice reported randomization in 35%, blinding in 70%, and the use of a power analysis in 9%. Studies that included rats reported randomization in 38%, blinding in 63%, and the use of power analysis in 12%. This study also found that human studies consistently included both sexes over the past decade, but less than 20% of data were disaggregated or analyzed for sex differences. Although mouse and rat studies predominately used males only, there has been a slight increase in inclusion of both sexes over the past few years. Justification for single-sex studies was below 50% in both human and rodent data. In both human and animal studies, transparency in reporting of experimental design and inclusion of both sexes should be considered standard practice and will result in improved quality and reproducibility of published research.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Evaluation of Sex Differences in Preclinical Pharmacology Research: How Far Is Left to Go?

Until the last quarter of the 20th century, sex was not recognized as a variable in health research, nor was it believed to be a factor that could affect health and illness. Researchers preferred studying male models for a variety of reasons, such as simplicity, lower costs, hormone confounding effects, and fear of liability from perinatal exposure in case of pregnancy. Equitable representation is imperative for determining the safety, effectiveness, and tolerance of therapeutic agents for all consumers. Decades of female models' underrepresentation in preclinical studies has resulted in inequality in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of disease between the sexes. Sex bias has been highlighted as one of the contributing factors to the poor translation and replicability of preclinical research. There have been multiple calls for action, and the inclusion of sex as a biological variable is increasingly supported. However, although there has been substantial progress in the efforts to include more female models in preclinical studies, disparities today remain. In the present review, we consider the current standard practice of the preclinical research setting, why the sex bias exists, why there is the need to include female models, and what risks may arise from continuing this exclusion from experimental design.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

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.

Best Practices in the Study of Gender

Integrating sex- and gender-related aspects into research and innovation content has become an urgent requirement of major science funding bodies as f.e. the European Commission, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the US NIH/Office of Women's Health Research.It was the only right response in reaction to the documented failure of the 'one size fits all' approach in traditional biomedical research practices. Attention to sex differences seems to be taken up by researchers quite well, however integrating a gender analysis has met with difficulties. Of prime importance here is to consider gender as a multidimensional concept, covering gender norms, gender identities and gender relations. A research design should clarify from the outset whether gender norms, identities or relations are of relevance to the research question at hand. This chapter provides an overview of international policies insisting on integrating a sex, gender and intersectional analysis into research and innovation with a focus on the the gender equality policy of the European Union. Next, more in depth, a collection of best practices, to be understood as a coherent set of processes and activities, corresponding to the starting points, theories and evidence of the field concerned of which it can be expected to contribute to the intended results in a particular context is described. Finally some challenges ahead are identified.

Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Sex-specific analysis and reporting may allow a better understanding of intervention effects and can support the decision-making process. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs), like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, provide clinical responses transparently and stress gaps of knowledge. This study aimed to describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships.

METHODS

We searched SRs published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An investigator appraised the sex-related analysis and reporting across sections of SRs and collected data on gender and country of affiliation of the review first and last authors, and a second checked for accuracy. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate logistic regression to explore the association between the gender of the authors and sex-related analysis and reporting.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ten Cochrane SRs were identified. After removing those that met no eligibility criteria, 516 reviews of interventions were included. Fifty-six reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) had a higher possibility to report sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12-3.75, P=0.020) than having none.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex consideration amongst Cochrane SRs was frequently missing. Structured guidance to sex-related analysis and reporting is needed to enhance the external validity of findings. Likewise, including gender diversity within the research workforce and relevant authorship positions may foster equity in the evidence generated.

Physical activity and substance use among Canadian adolescents: Examining the moderating role of school connectedness

Physical activity may play a role in promoting or preventing substance use among youth. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between different types of physical activity [i.e., non-competitive school sport, competitive school sport, outside of school sport and minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day] and substance use (i.e., current smoking, e-cigarette, cannabis, binge drinking) among Canadian youth. Interaction effects between physical activity and school connectedness were also examined. Using data from the COMPASS study (2018-19; n = 73,672), four multi-level logistic regression models were developed to investigate whether physical activity lessened or worsened the odds of (1) smoking; (2) e-cigarette use; (3) cannabis use; and (4) binge drinking. Models were stratified by gender to reflect the inherent differences between genders. Models were adjusted for demographic factors and other covariates. Sport participation was consistently associated with substance use, whereas less evidence was found for meeting MVPA guidelines. Non-competitive school sport lessened the odds of cannabis use for males and females. However, non-competitive school sport only lessened the odds of e-cigarette use for females but increased the odds of binge drinking for males. Participation in competitive school sport lessened the odds of cigarette smoking but increased the odds of e-cigarette use and binge drinking for males and females. Outside of school sport lessened the odds of cigarette smoking and cannabis use but increased the odds of e-cigarette use and binge drinking for males and females. A significant moderation effect was found for males participating in sport outside of school and meeting MVPA guidelines who were at a lower risk of e-cigarette use in the presence of high levels of school connectedness. Our study provides evidence for further consideration and provision of extracurricular activities, specifically non-competitive sport, in protecting against substance use. Caution is required in claiming that sport participation or physical activity, in general, is negatively associated with substance use among youth.

Chromosomal and environmental contributions to sex differences in the vulnerability to neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders: Implications for therapeutic interventions

Neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders affect men and women differently. Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorders, depression, meningiomas and late-onset schizophrenia affect women more frequently than men. By contrast, Parkinson's disease, autism spectrum condition, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and early-onset schizophrenia are more prevalent in men. Women have been historically under-recruited or excluded from clinical trials, and most basic research uses male rodent cells or animals as disease models, rarely studying both sexes and factoring sex as a potential source of variation, resulting in a poor understanding of the underlying biological reasons for sex and gender differences in the development of such diseases. Putative pathophysiological contributors include hormones and epigenetics regulators but additional biological and non-biological influences may be at play. We review here the evidence for the underpinning role of the sex chromosome complement, X chromosome inactivation, and environmental and epigenetic regulators in sex differences in the vulnerability to brain disease. We conclude that there is a pressing need for a better understanding of the genetic, epigenetic and environmental mechanisms sustaining sex differences in such diseases, which is critical for developing a precision medicine approach based on sex-tailored prevention and treatment.

Gender-Diverse Inclusion in Immunological Research: Benefits to Science and Health

The differences between male and female immune systems are an under-researched field, ripe for discovery. This is evidenced by the stark sex biases seen in autoimmunity and infectious disease. Both the sex hormones (oestrogen and testosterone), as well as the sex chromosomes have been demonstrated to impact immune responses, in multiple ways. Historical shortcomings in reporting basic and clinical scientific findings in a sex-disaggregated manner have led not only to limited discovery of disease aetiology, but to potential inaccuracies in the estimation of the effects of diseases or interventions on females and gender-diverse groups. Here we propose not only that research subjects should include both cis-gender men and cis-gender women, but also transgender and gender-diverse people alongside them. The known interaction between the hormonal milieu and the sex chromosomes is inseparable in cis-gender human research, without the confounders of puberty and age. By inclusion of those pursuing hormonal affirmation of their gender identity- the individual and interactive investigation of hormones and chromosomes is permitted. Not only does this allow for a fine-tuned dissection of these individual effects, but it allows for discovery that is both pertinent and relevant to a far wider portion of the population. There is an unmet need for detailed treatment follow-up of the transgender community- little is known of the potential benefits and risks of hormonal supplementation on the immune system, nor indeed on many other health and disease outcomes. Our research team has pioneered the inclusion of gender-diverse persons in our basic research in adolescent autoimmune rheumatic diseases. We review here the many avenues that remain unexplored, and suggest ways in which other groups and teams can broaden their horizons and invest in a future for medicine that is both fruitful and inclusive.

Health systems and quality of healthcare: bringing back missing discussions about gender and sexuality

Gender and sexuality are recognised as social determinants of health. While gender and sexuality are becoming important frameworks guiding many disciplines and studies, discussions about quality of healthcare (QHC) lack a sufficient focus on these. When QHC studies have considered gender and sexuality the primary focus tends to be on the practice of individual professionals, patients' differential health seeking behaviours or outcomes. This commentary eapplies a gender and sexuality lens to Donabedian's framework to further understand the influence of gender and sexuality in shaping QHC. The framework illustrates how the very foundations of QHC (institutional structures, processes and outcomes), can increase or reduce inequalities in QHC linked to gender, sexuality (as well as other factors). The commentary suggests practices that would reduce these inequalities. In the context of present debates over inequality in medicine, science and global health , this commentary is a reminder that health systems have a critical role to play in ensuring that QHC does not perpetuate them. .

Expert voices in South African mass media during the COVID-19 pandemic

Scientists increasingly recognise that media visibility allows them to gain influence in public and policy spheres. However, some scientists shy away from publicity and journalists are purposefully selective when they seek out experts to interview. This may result in a skewed representation of scientists in the mass media. In this study, we explored which South African scientific experts at the academic rank of ‘professor’ were quoted in the local mass media during the initial 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of 1164 media articles related to COVID-19 showed that, as far as gender is concerned, men dominated as expert sources, with women accounting for only 30% of quoted professors. In terms of research field, most experts were from the broad field of health and medicine, with an under-representation of social scientists. We reflect on the implications and consequences of a skewed media representation of scientific expertise, as well as some of the options to remedy these imbalances.

Integrating sex and gender in studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review

Aims

To examine the prevalence, temporal changes, and impact of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Sex as a Biological Variable (SABV) policy on sex and gender reporting and analysis in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) cohort studies.

Methods and results

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for cohort studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of CRT in heart failure patients from January 2000 to June 2020, with no language restrictions. Segmented regression analysis was used for policy analysis. We included 253 studies. Fourteen per cent considered sex in the study design. Outcome data disaggregated by sex were only reported in 17% of the studies. Of the studies with statistical models (n = 173), 57% were adjusted for sex. Sixty‐eight per cent of those reported an effect size for sex on the outcome. Sex‐stratified analyses were conducted in 13% of the studies. Temporal analysis shows an increase in sex reporting in background, statistical models, study design, and discussion. Besides statistical models, NIH SABV policy analysis showed no significant change in the reporting of sex in study sections. Gender was not reported or analysed in any study.

Conclusions

There is a need to improve the study design, analysis, and completeness of reporting of sex in CRT cohort studies. Inadequate sex integration in study design and analysis may potentially hinder progress in understanding sex disparities in CRT. Deficiencies in the integration of sex in studies could be overcome by implementing guidance that already exists.

A qualitative exploration of how gender and relationship shape family caregivers' experiences across the Alzheimer's disease trajectory

Caregiving experiences are not static. They change across the disease trajectory and care continuum. However, it is not clear how caregiver gender or relationship type is related to evolving caregiver experiences over time. This qualitative study informed by constructivist grounded theory and framework analysis explored the experiences over time of men and women who were adult children and spousal caregivers to persons with Alzheimer's disease. Forty spousal (10 husbands and 10 wives) and adult children (10 sons and 10 daughters) caregivers to persons with Alzheimer's disease were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Our findings suggest the experiences of caregiving, examined through a gender and relationship type lens, are complex and variable. The caregiving experience was not related to gender or relationship type alone, but often to a combination of the two. For instance, spousal caregivers did not immediately accept the diagnosis, with wives being more optimistic than husbands about a slow progression of the disease. Adult children caregivers were concerned about the ways the caregiving role would impact their personal and career obligations and sought ways to mitigate the changes to their daily lives. Sons and husband caregivers largely utilized home and community health services to assist with personal care tasks, whereas daughters and wives utilized the same services to allow them to complete other caregiving tasks (e.g., housekeeping). Recognition of the complex inter-relationships among gender and relationship type on caregiving experiences supports the need for family-centered interventions. This article also extends sex and gender research as it highlights that an in-depth understanding of the caregiving experience cannot be understood by gender alone and relationship type must also be considered.

The Integration of Sex and Gender Considerations Into Biomedical Research: Lessons From International Funding Agencies

To improve the outcomes of research and medicine, government-based international research funding agencies have implemented various types of policies and mechanisms with respect to sex as a biological variable and gender as a sociocultural factor. After the 1990s, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the European Commission (EC) began requesting that applicants address sex and gender considerations in grant proposals, and offering resources to help the scientific community integrate sex and gender into biomedical research. Although it is too early to analyze data on the success of all of the policies and mechanisms implemented, here we review the use both of carrots (incentives) and sticks (requirements) developed to motivate researchers and the entire scientific research enterprise to consider sex and gender influences on health and in science. The NIH focused on sex as a biological variable (SABV) aligned with an initiative to enhance reproducibility through rigor and transparency; CIHR instituted a sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) policy; and the EC required the integration of the "gender dimension," which incorporates sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into research and innovation. Other global efforts are briefly summarized. Although we are still learning what works, we share lessons learned to improve the integration of sex and gender considerations into research. In conjunction with refining and expanding the policies of funding agencies and mechanisms, private funders/philanthropic groups, editors of peer-reviewed journals, academic institutions, professional organizations, ethics boards, health care systems, and industry also need to make concerted efforts to integrate sex and gender into research, and we all must bridge across silos to promote systemwide solutions throughout the biomedical enterprise. For example, policies that encourage researchers to disaggregate data by sex and gender, the development of tools to better measure gender effects, or policies similar to SABV and/or SGBA adopted by private funders would accelerate progress. Uptake, accountability for, and a critical appraisal of sex and gender throughout the biomedical enterprise will be crucial to achieving the goal of relevant, reproducible, replicable, and responsible science that will lead to better evidence-based, personalized care for all, but especially for women.

A 10-year longitudinal evaluation of science policy interventions to promote sex and gender in health research

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has implemented multicomponent interventions to increase the uptake of sex and gender in grant applications. Interventions included mandatory reporting on applicant forms, development of resources for applicants and evaluators, and grant review requirements. Here, we aim to inform science policy implementation by describing the 10-year outcomes and lessons learned from these interventions.

METHODS

This is a prospective longitudinal study. The population is all applicants across 15 investigator-initiated CIHR competitions from 2011 to 2019 and grant evaluators from 2018 to 2019. Quantitative data were derived from applicants' and grant evaluators' mandatory reporting of sex and gender integration in the grants management database. The application was the unit of analysis. Trends in sex and gender uptake in applications were plotted over time, stratified by research area. Univariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between the sex of the applicant and the uptake of sex and gender, and the latter with funding success. Qualitative review of the quality and appropriateness of evaluators' comments informed the development of discipline-specific training to peer review committee members. Feedback was compiled from a subset of evaluators on the perceived usefulness of the educational materials using a brief questionnaire.

RESULTS

Since 2011, 39,390 applications were submitted. The proportion that reported integration of sex rose from 22 to 83%, and gender from 12 to 33%. Population health research applications paid the greatest attention to gender (82%). Across every competition, applications with female principal investigators were more likely to integrate sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-1.63) and gender (OR 2.40, 95% CI 2.29-2.51) than those who identified as male. Since 2018, applications that scored highly for the integration of sex (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.50-2.50) and gender (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.83-3.50) were more likely to be funded. Qualitative observations revealed persistent conflation of the terms sex and gender. Eighty-six percent of evaluators appreciated the tailored discipline-specific coaching.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of policy interventions improved sex and gender uptake in grant applications, with higher success rates observed over time for applications that integrated sex and gender. Other funders' action plans around sex and gender integration may be informed from our experiences of the timing, type and targets of the different interventions, specifically those directed at evaluators.

Sex omission and male bias are still widespread in cell experiments

Integrating sex as an important biological variable is imperative to enhance the accuracy and reproducibility of cell-based studies, which provide basic information for subsequent preclinical and clinical study designs. Recently, international funding agencies and renowned journals have been attempting to integrate sex as a variable in every research step. To understand what progress has been made in reporting of cell sex in the articles published in AJP-Cell Physiology since the analysis in 2013, we examined the sex notation of the cells in relevant articles published in the same journal in 2018. Of the 107 articles reporting cell experiments, 53 reported the sex of the cells, 18 used both male and female cells, 23 used male cells only, and 12 used female cells only. Sex omission was more frequent when cell lines were used than when primary cells were used. In the articles describing experiments performed using rodent primary cells, more than half of the studies used only male cells. Our results showed an overall improvement in sex reporting for cells in AJP-Cell Physiology articles from 2013 (25%) to 2018 (50%). However, sex omission and male bias were often found still. Furthermore, the obtained results were rarely analyzed by sex even when both male and female cells were used in the experiments. To boost sex-considerate research implementation in basic biomedical studies, cooperative efforts of the research community, funders, and publishers are urged.

Paucity and Disparity of Publicly Available Sex-Disaggregated Data for the COVID-19 Epidemic Hamper Evidence-Based Decision-Making

COVID-19 has joined the long list of sexually dimorphic human disorders. Higher lethality in men, evident in the first reports from China, was confirmed in the subsequent Italian outbreak. Newspapers and scientific journals commented on this finding and the preexisting conditions, biological processes, and behavioral differences that may underlie it. However, little appeared to be released about sex differences in severity of disease, comorbidities, rate of recovery, length of hospital stay, or number of tests performed. Systematic analysis of official websites for 20 countries and 6 US states revealed a wide disparity in sex-disaggregated data made available to the public and scholars. Only a handful reported cases by sex. None of the other characteristics, including deaths, were stratified by sex at the time. Beyond suboptimal sex disaggregation, we found a paucity of usable raw data sets and a generalized lack of standardization of captured data, making comparisons difficult. A second round of data capture in April found more complete, but even more disparate, information. Our analysis revealed a wide range of sex ratios among confirmed cases. In countries where a male bias was initially reported, the proportion of women dramatically increased in 3 weeks. Analysis also revealed a complex pattern of sex ratio variation with age. Accurate, peer-reviewed, analysis of harmonized, sex-disaggregated data for characteristics of epidemics, such as availability of testing, suspected source of infection, or comorbidities, will be critical to understand where the observed disparities come from and to generate evidence-based recommendations for decision-making by governments.

Paucity and Disparity of Publicly Available Sex-Disaggregated Data for the COVID-19 Epidemic Hamper Evidence-Based Decision-Making

COVID-19 has joined the long list of sexually dimorphic human disorders. Higher lethality in men, evident in the first reports from China, was confirmed in the subsequent Italian outbreak. Newspapers and scientific journals commented on this finding and the preexisting conditions, biological processes, and behavioral differences that may underlie it. However, little appeared to be released about sex differences in severity of disease, comorbidities, rate of recovery, length of hospital stay, or number of tests performed. Systematic analysis of official websites for 20 countries and 6 US states revealed a wide disparity in sex-disaggregated data made available to the public and scholars. Only a handful reported cases by sex. None of the other characteristics, including deaths, were stratified by sex at the time. Beyond suboptimal sex disaggregation, we found a paucity of usable raw data sets and a generalized lack of standardization of captured data, making comparisons difficult. A second round of data capture in April found more complete, but even more disparate, information. Our analysis revealed a wide range of sex ratios among confirmed cases. In countries where a male bias was initially reported, the proportion of women dramatically increased in 3 weeks. Analysis also revealed a complex pattern of sex ratio variation with age. Accurate, peer-reviewed, analysis of harmonized, sex-disaggregated data for characteristics of epidemics, such as availability of testing, suspected source of infection, or comorbidities, will be critical to understand where the observed disparities come from and to generate evidence-based recommendations for decision-making by governments.

Sex- and gender-sensitive public health research: an analysis of research proposals in a research institute in the Netherlands

Taking sex and gender into account in public health research is essential to optimize methodological procedures, bridge the gender gap in public health knowledge, and advance gender equality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current status of sex and gender considerations in public health research proposals in a Dutch research institute. We screened a random sample of 38 proposals submitted for review to the institute's science committee between 2011 and 2016. Using the Canadian Institutes of Health Research' Gender and Health Institute criteria for gender-sensitive research and qualitative content analysis, we assessed if, and how sex and gender were considered throughout the proposals (background, research aim, design, data collection, and analysis). Our results show that in general, both sex and gender were poorly considered. Gender was insufficiently taken into account throughout most proposals. When sex was mentioned in a proposal, its consideration was often inconsistent and fragmented. Finally, we identified common methodological pitfalls. We recommend that public health curricula and funding bodies increase their focus on implementing sex and gender in public health research, for instance through quality criteria, training programs for researchers and reviewers, and capacity building initiatives.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

Allostatic load and women's brain health: A systematic review

Allostatic load represents the 'wear and tear' of chronic stress on the brain and body that may differ between men and women. A small but growing number of studies are assessing allostatic load in relation to mental health. The objective of this systematic review was to (1) assess sex differences in allostatic load and (2) identify allostatic load associations that are specific to women. We systematically searched for allostatic load studies that included psychosocial causes and/or psychiatric consequences. Our search focused on allostatic load studies that disaggregated by sex and that include women. Sixty-two studies were included in this systematic review. First, men appear to have higher allostatic load than women. Second, women show gender-specific variation for numerous factors such as age, race/ethnicity, adversities, social support, and health behaviors that influence associations between allostatic load and mental health. Recommendations are made to guide researchers advance sex and gender approaches.

Female under-representation in sepsis studies: a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess female representation in primary studies underpinning recommendations from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews for sepsis treatment in adults.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a bibliometric study. We removed studies pertaining to sex-specific diseases and included quasirandomized, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies. We analyzed the female participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR).

RESULTS

We included 277 studies published between 1973 and 2017. For the 246 studies for which sex data were available, the share of female participation was 40%. Females overall were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR 0.78). Disaggregated results were reported by sex in 57 studies. In univariate analyses, non-intensive care unit setting and consideration of other social health determinants were significantly associated with greater female participation (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). In regression models, studies published in 1996 or later were likely to report sex, while RCTs were unlikely to do so (P = 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study points to female underenrollment in sepsis studies. Primary studies underpinning recommendations for sepsis have poorly reported their findings by sex.

Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease as a Canonical Example of Metabolic Inflammatory-Based Liver Disease Showing a Sex-Specific Prevalence: Relevance of Estrogen Signaling

There is extensive evidence supporting the interplay between metabolism and immune response, that have evolved in close relationship, sharing regulatory molecules and signaling systems, to support biological functions. Nowadays, the disruption of this interaction in the context of obesity and overnutrition underlies the increasing incidence of many inflammatory-based metabolic diseases, even in a sex-specific fashion. During evolution, the interplay between metabolism and reproduction has reached a degree of complexity particularly high in female mammals, likely to ensure reproduction only under favorable conditions. Several factors may account for differences in the incidence and progression of inflammatory-based metabolic diseases between females and males, thus contributing to age-related disease development and difference in life expectancy between the two sexes. Among these factors, estrogens, acting mainly through Estrogen Receptors (ERs), have been reported to regulate several metabolic pathways and inflammatory processes particularly in the liver, the metabolic organ showing the highest degree of sexual dimorphism. This review aims to investigate on the interaction between metabolism and inflammation in the liver, focusing on the relevance of estrogen signaling in counteracting the development and progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a canonical example of metabolic inflammatory-based liver disease showing a sex-specific prevalence. Understanding the role of estrogens/ERs in the regulation of hepatic metabolism and inflammation may provide the basis for the development of sex-specific therapeutic strategies for the management of such an inflammatory-based metabolic disease and its cardio-metabolic consequences.

Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding

Neuroscience research has historically demonstrated sex bias that favors male over female research subjects, as well as sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. Here we analyzed the status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research published across six different journals in 2017. Regarding sex omission, 16% of articles did not report sex. Regarding sex bias, 52% of neuroscience articles reported using both males and females, albeit only 15% of articles using both males and females reported assessing sex as an experimental variable. Overrepresentation of the sole use of males compared to females persisted (26% versus 5%, respectively). Sex bias and omission differed across research models, but not by reported NIH funding status. Sex omission differed across journals. These findings represent the latest information regarding the complex status of sex in neuroscience research and illustrate the continued need for thoughtful and informed action to enhance scientific discovery.

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.

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Cannabis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review

There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptoms, with women reporting worse withdrawal symptoms than men. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of cannabis pharmacological interventions for women and men and the uptake of sex- and gender-based analysis in the included studies. Two reviewers performed the full-paper screening, and data was extracted by one researcher. The search yielded 6098 unique records—of which, 68 were full-paper screened. Four articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. From the randomized clinical studies of pharmacological interventions, few studies report sex-disaggregated outcomes for women and men. Despite emergent evidence showing the influence of sex and gender factors in cannabis research, sex-disaggregated outcomes in pharmacological interventions is lacking. Sex- and gender-based analysis is incipient in the included articles. Future research should explore more comprehensive inclusion of sex- and gender-related aspects in pharmacological treatments for CUD.

Inclusion of Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine Research-A 2018 Update

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to 1) evaluate the inclusion of sex and gender in publications by emergency medicine (EM) researchers following the 2014 federal mandate and an Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on sex- and gender-based research and 2) assess trends compared with 2011 status report that showed 29% studies used sex and gender in the study design and 2% reported it as a primary outcome.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE, the term "emergency" was used to identify all English-language studies of adult humans published between 2014 and 2017 as EM affiliated (i.e., the first, second, or last author belonged to an EM section, division, center, or institution functioning as emergency department). Four trained abstractors reviewed the data using a standardized data abstraction form.

RESULTS

The search revealed 6,442 articles using the selected "emergency" terms, and 2,628 original studies coded as EM-affiliated publications were reviewed, 2,340 met inclusion criteria, and 2,336 were analyzed. This compared to 750 articles reviewed in 2011 using similar search strategy. The adjusted inter-rater reliability for data abstraction was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 95.4%-98.6%]. The leading study areas contributing the most articles were cardiovascular (17.5%), administration/crowding (15.8%), infectious diseases (9.2%), trauma/injury (9.2%), emergency medical services (6.1%), and pulmonary (6.1%). Eighty-six percent (n = 1,921) reported the sex/gender composition of the sample and 0.4% (n = 8) reported transgender identity. Thirty-four percent used sex/gender in the study design, with 27% (n = 609) reporting it as a control variable, 24% (n = 543) as an independent variable, and 2% using sex/gender as primary outcome. Studies funded by federal sources were significantly more likely to include sex/gender in the study design than other sources of funding (odds ratio = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.4-2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to 2011, we noted an increase in the number of EM scholarship and use of sex and gender in study design, yet the proportion evaluating it as a primary outcome remained unchanged.

Interventions on children's and adolescents' physical activity and sedentary behaviour: protocol for a systematic review from a sex/gender perspective

BACKGROUND

Low levels of physical activity (PA) and high levels of sedentary behaviour (SB) have been observed in young people. Both behaviours are detrimental for health with patterns tending to continue into adulthood. There is sustained value in establishing health habits in early years. Even though levels of SB and participation in PA differ among boys and girls, and the effectiveness of interventions to promote PA and/or prevent sedentary behaviours varies by sex/gender to date, sex/gender in systematic reviews is not yet widely considered. Additionally, while tools have been proposed, there is no consensus on the criteria to assess sex/gender in systematic reviews in the context of health promotion. The main objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate the effects of interventions on girls' and boys' PA and SB and to appraise the extent to which the studies have taken sex/gender into account.

METHODS

Eleven electronic databases will be searched to identify all relevant (randomized) controlled trials. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data and appraise the quality of studies. The main outcome of the studies will be a quantified measure of PA and/or SB. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Meta-analyses will be conducted when possible among studies with sufficient homogeneity. To evaluate sex/gender considerations in primary studies, we will use a sex/gender checklist that builds on existing tools and was developed during a 2-day, iterative process among a multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts. The GRADE framework will be used to evaluate evidence across studies for each main efficacy outcome.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, our systematic review will be the first to analyse how sex/gender is considered in interventions promoting PA and/or reducing SB in children and adolescents in detail. The review will provide information on how sex/gender aspects have been considered in recent research and the extent to which sex/gender might impact study outcomes. Our findings will be of interest to stakeholders, health promoters, researchers and policy makers who wish to support more equal outcomes from interventions promoting PA and/or reducing SB.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018109528 .

Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical and preclinical studies have shown that there are sex-based differences at the genetic, cellular, biochemical, and physiological levels. Despite this, numerous studies have shown poor levels of inclusion of female populations into medical research. These disparities in sex inclusion in research are further complicated by the absence of sufficient reporting and analysis by sex of study populations. Disparities in the inclusion of the sexes in medical research substantially reduce the utility of the results of such research for the entire population. The absence of sex-related reporting are problematical for the translation of research from the preclinical to clinical and applied health settings. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the extent of sex-related reporting and where disparities are more prevalent. In addition, while several studies have shown the dearth of female researchers in science, few have evaluated whether a scarcity of women in science might be related to disparities in sex inclusion and reporting. We aimed to do a cross-disciplinary analysis of the degree of sex-related reporting across the health sciences-from biomedical, to clinical, and public health research-and the role of author gender in sex-related reporting.

METHODS

This bibliometric analysis analysed sex-related reporting in medical research examining more than 11·5 million papers indexed in Web of Science and PubMed between 1980 and 2016 and using sex-related Medical Subject Headings as a proxy for sex reporting. For papers that were published between 2008 and 2016 and could be matched with PubMed, we assigned a gender to first and last authors on the basis of their names, according to our gender assignment algorithm. We removed papers for which we could not determine the gender of either the first or last author. We grouped papers into three disciplinary categories (biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health). We used descriptive statistics and regression analyses (controlling for the number of authors and representation of women in specific diseases, countries, continents, year, and specialty areas) to study associations between the gender of the authors and sex-related reporting.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, sex-related reporting increased from 59% to 67% in clinical medicine and from 36% to 69% in public health research. But for biomedical research, sex remains largely under-reported (31% in 2016). Papers with female first and last authors had an increased probability of reporting sex, with an odds ratio of 1·26 (95% CI 1·24 to 1·27), and sex-related reporting was associated with publications in journals with low journal impact factors. For publications in 2016, sex-related reporting of both male and female is associated with a reduction of -0·51 (95% CI -0·54 to -0·47) in journal impact factors.

INTERPRETATION

Gender disparities in the scientific workforce and scarcity of policies on sex-related reporting at the journal and institutional level could inhibit effective research translation from bench to clinical studies. Diversification in the scientific workforce and in the research populations-from cell lines, to rodents, to humans-is essential to produce the most rigorous and effective medical research.

FUNDING

Canada Research Chairs.

Sex bias in preclinical research and an exploration of how to change the status quo

There has been a revolution within clinical trials to include females in the research pipeline. However, there has been limited change in the preclinical arena; yet the research here lays the ground work for the subsequent clinical trials. Sex bias has been highlighted as one of the contributing factors to the poor translation and replicability issues undermining preclinical research. There have been multiple calls for action, and the funders of biomedical research are actively pushing the inclusion of sex as a biological variable. Here, we consider the current standard practice within the preclinical research setting, why there is a movement to include females and why the imbalance exists. We explore organizational change theory as a tool to shape strategies needed at an individual and institute level to change the status quo. The ultimate goal is to create a scientific environment in which our preclinical research automatically implements sex-sensitive approaches. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on The Importance of Sex Differences in Pharmacology Research. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v176.21/issuetoc.

Approaches to considering sex and gender in continuous professional development for health and social care professionals: An emerging paradigm

Consideration of sex and gender in research and clinical practice is necessary to redress health inequities and reduce knowledge gaps. As all health professionals must maintain and update their skills throughout their career, developing innovative continuing professional education programs that integrate sex and gender issues holds great promise for reducing these gaps. This article proposes new approaches to partnership, team development, pedagogical theory, content development, evaluation and data management that will advance the integration of sex and gender in continuing professional development (CPD). Our perspectives build on an intersectoral and interprofessional research team that includes several perspectives, including those of CPD, health systems, knowledge translation and sex and gender.

Effectiveness of online learning on health researcher capacity to appropriately integrate sex, gender, or both in grant proposals

BACKGROUND

To describe the effectiveness of online learning to augment academic capacity to consider sex and gender in the conduct of basic science, clinical research, and population health studies.

METHOD

The analysis compares pre- and post-test scores from 1441 individuals who completed the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Gender and Health's interactive e-learning modules between February 2016 and May 2017. The tests measured knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-reported intent to change behavior for three competencies: (1) the ability to appropriately define and distinguish between sex-related versus gender-related variables, (2) the application of methods for integrating sex and gender, and (3) the critical appraisal of sex and gender integration in the design, methods, and analysis plan of research proposals and publications.

RESULTS

Of the 543 individuals who completed the basic science module, 62% demonstrated improved knowledge, and 86% increased self-efficacy across all competencies. Gains in knowledge and self-efficacy also occurred among 84% and 77% of completers of the human data collection module (n = 463) and among 73% and 82% of those who completed the secondary data analysis module (n = 435). In aggregate, 95% of participants reported an intent to change their behavior with respect to sex and gender in health research.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactive online learning combined with feedback and self-assessment results in improved knowledge and self-efficacy for integrating sex and gender in health research.

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.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.

RESULTS

We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Sex and Gender Differences Research Design for Basic, Clinical, and Population Studies: Essentials for Investigators

A sex- and gender-informed perspective increases rigor, promotes discovery, and expands the relevance of biomedical research. In the current era of accountability to present data for males and females, thoughtful and deliberate methodology can improve study design and inference in sex and gender differences research. We address issues of motivation, subject selection, sample size, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, considering implications for basic, clinical, and population research. In particular, we focus on methods to test sex/gender differences as effect modification or interaction, and discuss why some inferences from sex-stratified data should be viewed with caution. Without careful methodology, the pursuit of sex difference research, despite a mandate from funding agencies, will result in a literature of contradiction. However, given the historic lack of attention to sex differences, the absence of evidence for sex differences is not necessarily evidence of the absence of sex differences. Thoughtfully conceived and conducted sex and gender differences research is needed to drive scientific and therapeutic discovery for all sexes and genders.

Sex in basic research: concepts in the cardiovascular field

Women and men, female and male animals and cells are biologically different, and acknowledgement of this fact is critical to advancing medicine. However, incorporating concepts of sex-specific analysis in basic research is largely neglected, introducing bias into translational findings, clinical concepts and drug development. Research funding agencies recently approached these issues but implementation of policy changes in the scientific community is still limited, probably due to deficits in concepts, knowledge and proper methodology. This expert review is based on the EUGenMed project (www.eugenmed.eu) developing a roadmap for implementing sex and gender in biomedical and health research. For sake of clarity and conciseness, examples are mainly taken from the cardiovascular field that may serve as a paradigm for others, since a significant amount of knowledge how sex and oestrogen determine the manifestation of many cardiovascular diseases (CVD) has been accumulated. As main concepts for implementation of sex in basic research, the study of primary cell and animals of both sexes, the study of the influence of genetic vs. hormonal factors and the analysis of sex chromosomes and sex specific statistics in genome wide association studies (GWAS) are discussed. The review also discusses methodological issues, and analyses strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in implementing sex-sensitive aspects into basic research.

Integrating sex and gender into neurodegeneration research: A six-component strategy

Introduction

Despite important sex differences, there remains a paucity of studies examining sex and gender differences in neurodegeneration. The Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA), a national network of researchers, provides an ideal platform to incorporate sex and gender.

Methods

CCNA's Women, Gender, Sex and Dementia program developed and implemented a six-component strategy involving executive oversight, training, research collaboration, progress report assessment, results dissemination, and ongoing manuscript review. The inclusion of sex and gender in current and planned CCNA projects was examined in two progress reporting periods in 2016.

Results

Sex and gender research productivity increased substantially for both preclinical (36%–45%) and human (56%–60%) cohorts. The main barrier was lack of funding.

Discussion

The Women, Gender, Sex and Dementia strategy resulted in a major increase of sex and gender into research on neurodegenerative disorders. This best practice model could be utilized by a wide variety of large multidisciplinary groups.

•

There is a paucity of research on sex and gender in neurodegenerative disorders.

•

A six-component strategy to integrate sex and gender into research was developed.

•

Strategy implemented in national network of researchers studying neurodegeneration.

•

Sex and gender research productivity increased for preclinical and human research.

•

Strategy could be adapted and utilized across various multidisciplinary groups.

Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research

Neuroscience research has historically ignored female animals. This neglect comes in two general forms. The first is sex bias, defined as favoring one sex over another; in this case, male over female. The second is sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. The recognition of this phenomenon has generated fierce debate across the sciences. Here we test whether sex bias and omission are still present in the neuroscience literature, whether studies employing both males and females neglect sex as an experimental variable, and whether sex bias and omission differs between animal models and journals. To accomplish this, we analyzed the largest-ever number of neuroscience articles for sex bias and omission: 6636 articles using mice or rats in 6 journals published from 2010 to 2014. Sex omission is declining, as increasing numbers of articles report sex. Sex bias remains present, as increasing numbers of articles report the sole use of males. Articles using both males and females are also increasing, but few report assessing sex as an experimental variable. Sex bias and omission varies substantially by animal model and journal. These findings are essential for understanding the complex status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research and may inform effective decisions regarding policy action.

Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study

BACKGROUND

Accurate reporting on sex and gender in health research is integral to ensuring that health interventions are safe and effective. In Canada and internationally, governments, research organizations, journal editors, and health agencies have called for more inclusive research, provision of sex-disaggregated data, and the integration of sex and gender analysis throughout the research process. Sex and gender analysis is generally defined as an approach for considering how and why different subpopulations (e.g., of diverse genders, ages, and social locations) may experience health conditions and interventions in different or similar ways.The objective of this study was to assess the extent and nature of reporting about sex and/or gender, including whether sex and gender analysis (SGA) was carried out in a sample of Canadian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with human participants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE from 01 January 2013 to 23 July 2014 using a validated filter for identification of RCTs, combined with terms related to Canada. Two reviewers screened the search results to identify the first 100 RCTs that were either identified in the trial publication as funded by a Canadian organization or which had a first or last author based in Canada. Data were independently extracted by two people from 10% of the RCTs during an initial training period; once agreement was reached on this sample, the remainder of the data extraction was completed by one person and verified by a second.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1433 records. We screened 256 records to identify 100 RCTs which met our eligibility criteria. The median sample size of the RCTs was 107 participants (range 12-6085). While 98% of studies described the demographic composition of their participants by sex, only 6% conducted a subgroup analysis across sex and 4% reported sex-disaggregated data. No article defined "sex" and/or "gender." No publication carried out a comprehensive sex and gender analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight poor uptake of sex and gender considerations in the Canadian RCT context and underscore the need for better articulated guidance on sex and gender analysis to improve reporting of evidence, inform policy development, and guide future research.