7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website ( www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

          Results

          A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines ( n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996.

          Conclusions

          We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge.

          Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

          Highlights

          • Omission of sex and gender considerations is a recurring deficiency in research design and reporting

          • Integration of sex and gender considerations in health research reporting guidelines is very low

          • Three criteria were used to assess correct use of sex and gender concepts

          • Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria

          • A call to action is made to address these deficiencies

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

            Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?

              There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about planned-action theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                amede.gogovor.1@ulaval.ca
                herve.zomahoun.ciussscn@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
                codjo-giraud-ulrich.ekanmian.1@ulaval.ca
                lionel.adisso.1@ulaval.ca
                alexe.deom-tardif.1@ulaval.ca
                lobna.khadhraoui.ciussscn@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
                nathalie.rheault.ciussscn@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
                dmoher@ohri.ca
                france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca
                Journal
                Biol Sex Differ
                Biol Sex Differ
                Biology of Sex Differences
                BioMed Central (London )
                2042-6410
                20 November 2021
                20 November 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 62
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.23856.3a, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8390, Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, ; Quebec City, QC Canada
                [3 ]GRID grid.23856.3a, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8390, Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, , Université Laval, ; Quebec City, QC Canada
                [4 ]VITAM-Centre de Recherche en Santé Durable, Pavillon Landry-Poulin, 2525, Chemin de la Canardière, Quebec, QC G1J 0A4 Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.28046.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, ON Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.412687.e, ISNI 0000 0000 9606 5108, Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, , Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, ; General Campus, Centre for Practice Changing Research Building, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-6696
                Article
                404
                10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0
                8605583
                34801060
                b22b45a3-ca39-4b58-8962-a24512d6f6c4
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 21 April 2021
                : 26 October 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant awarded to the Quebec SPOR Support Unit (QSSU)
                Award ID: SU1-139759
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Human biology
                reporting guideline,sex,gender,quality of reporting,systematic review,health research
                Human biology
                reporting guideline, sex, gender, quality of reporting, systematic review, health research

                Comments

                Comment on this article