The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey

Background: Systematic review methodology includes the rigorous collection, selection, and evaluation of data in order to synthesize the best available evidence for health practice, health technology assessments, and health policy. Despite evidence that sex and gender matter to health outcomes, data and analysis related to sex and gender are frequently absent in systematic reviews, raising concerns about the quality and applicability of reviews. Few studies have focused on challenges to implementing sex/gender analysis within systematic reviews. Methods A multidisciplinary group of systematic reviewers, methodologists, biomedical and social science researchers, health practitioners, and other health sector professionals completed an open-ended survey prior to a two-day workshop focused on sex/gender, equity, and bias in systematic reviews. Respondents were asked to identify challenging or ‘thorny’ issues associated with integrating sex and gender in systematic reviews and indicate how they address these in their work. Data were analysed using interpretive description. A summary of the findings was presented and discussed with workshop participants. Results Respondents identified conceptual challenges, such as defining sex and gender, methodological challenges in measuring and analysing sex and gender, challenges related to availability of data and data quality, and practical and policy challenges. No respondents discussed how they addressed these challenges, but all proposed ways to address sex/gender analysis in the future. Conclusions Respondents identified a wide range of interrelated challenges to implementing sex/gender considerations within systematic reviews. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to identify these challenges from the perspectives of those conducting and using systematic reviews. A framework and methods to integrate sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews are in the early stages of development. A number of priority items and collaborative initiatives to guide systematic reviewers in sex/gender analysis are provided, based on the survey results and subsequent workshop discussions. An emerging ‘community of practice’ is committed to enhancing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews by integrating considerations of sex/gender into the review process, with the goals of improving health outcomes and ensuring health equity for all persons.Population and Public Health (SPPH), School ofNon UBCMedicine, Faculty ofReviewedFacult

Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities

The regulation of prescription drugs is an important health, safety, and equity issue. However, regulatory processes do not always consider evidence on sex, gender, and factors such as age and race, omissions that advocates have highlighted for several decades. Assessing the impact of sex-related factors is critical to ensuring drug safety and efficacy for females and males, and for informing clinical product monographs and consumer information. Gender-related factors affect prescribing, access to drugs, needs and desires for specific prescribed therapies. This article draws on a policy-research partnership project that examined the lifecycle management of prescription drugs in Canada using a sex and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) lens. In the same time period, Health Canada created a Scientific Advisory Committee on Health Products for Women, in part to examine drug regulation. We report on grey literature and selected regulatory documents to illustrate the extent to which sex and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) is utilized in regulation and policy. We identify omissions in the management of prescription drugs, and name opportunities for improvements by integrating SGBA+ into drug sponsor applications, clinical trials development, and pharmacovigilance. We report on recent efforts to incorporate sex disaggregated data and recommend ways that the management of prescription drugs can benefit from more integration of sex, gender, and equity

There’s a Way Out for Me: Insights from Support Intervention for Low-income Women Who Smoke

Based on an assessment of low-income women’s support needs and preferences, an intervention was designed consisting of 14 weekly group support sessions encompassing peer and professional facilitators and volunteer buddies. Participants (n=44) completed a 13-item semi-structured qualitative interview following the intervention and an 8-item semi-structured interview three months later. Most women reported that the support group mobilized and reinforced their intentions to quit smoking. Participants enjoyed opportunities to interact with women facing similar challenges and to receive emotional, informational, affirmation and practical support. Women indicated that the program provided useful information about life skills; improved their self-esteem; taught them smoking reduction and cessation strategies; offered an opportunity to share feelings and life experiences; and helped them to relax and enjoy their time together through exercises and crafts. The intervention addressed multiple issues in low-income women’s lives, suggesting that tobacco cessation for vulnerable populations require comprehensive intensive intervention

Development and Evaluation of ‘Briefing Notes’ as a Novel Knowledge Translation Tool to Aid the Implementation of Sex/Gender Analysis in Systematic Reviews: A Pilot Study

©- 2014 Doull et al. There is increasing recognition of sex/gender differences in health and the importance of identifying differential effects of interventions for men and women. Yet, to whom the research evidence does or does not apply, with regard to sex/gender, is often insufficiently answered. This is also true for systematic reviews which synthesize results of primary studies. A lack of analysis and reporting of evidence on sex/gender raises concerns about the applicability of systematic reviews. To bridge this gap, this pilot study aimed to translate knowledge about sex/gender analysis (SGA) into a user-friendly 'briefing note' format and evaluate its potential in aiding the implementation of SGA in systematic reviews. Methods: Our Sex/Gender Methods Group used an interactive process to translate knowledge about sex/gender into briefing notes, a concise communication tool used by policy and decision makers. The briefing notes were developed in collaboration with three Cochrane Collaboration review groups (HIV/AIDS, Hypertension, and Musculoskeletal) who were also the target knowledge users of the briefing notes. Briefing note development was informed by existing systematic review checklists, literature on sex/gender, in-person and virtual meetings, and consultation with topic experts. Finally, we held a workshop for potential users to evaluate the notes. Results: Each briefing note provides tailored guidance on considering sex/gender to reviewers who are planning or conducting systematic reviews and includes the rationale for considering sex/gender, with examples specific to each review group's focus. Review authors found that the briefing notes provided welcome guidance on implementing SGA that was clear and concise, but also identified conceptual and implementation challenges. Conclusions: Sex/gender briefing notes are a promising knowledge translation tool. By encouraging sex/gender analysis and equity considerations in systematic reviews, the briefing notes can assist systematic reviewers in ensuring the applicability of research evidence, with the goal of improved health outcomes for diverse populations