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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Should data on gender and ethnicity inform ergonomics interventions? Lessons from four case studies

Ergonomists intervene to improve work for all workers and adapt jobs to a range of worker characteristics. But their mandate rarely includes explicit attention to the distribution of worker demographics, to divisions among workers, or to discrimination on the basis of sex/gender or racialisation. A decades-long collaboration between ergonomists and the women's committees of three union confederations in Québec, Canada led to several instances where ergonomists had to confront situations involving sexism or racism, not foreseen during their training. This article will explore four problematic situations and suggest solutions, including paying more attention to teamwork, considering gender during ergonomics training, and developing a code of practice for ergonomics interventions.Practitioner summary: Workplace inequities related to sex/gender, racialisation and other sources of social inequity can affect job performance and workers' health. As such, do ergonomists need to consider them during an intervention? How? We analyse four situations encountered during interventions and suggest more attention to understanding workplace dynamics and promoting team function.

Impacts of considering sex and gender during intervention studies in occupational health: Researchers' perspectives

The aim of this article is to examine the impacts of incorporating sex and gender (s/g) analysis in integrated knowledge translation (iKT) initiatives in the field of ergonomics and occupational health. The article presents findings based on a retrospective analysis of twelve intervention-research (IR) studies, including a thematic content analysis of in-depth interviews conducted with 15 researchers involved in these IRs. The findings offer an overview of various categories of impacts, such as changes in partners' views, in workplace settings and conditions, in practices and policies, and in economic outcomes. In these types of IR, health effects measurement is not the main objective, and direct health outcomes are difficult to assess. Explicitly talking about sex/gender led more often to system-level changes but less often to workplace-level changes, compared to interventions where sex/gender was not identified as a specific object of the intervention.