Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Debate

Why sex and gender matter in implementation research

Authors: Cara Tannenbaum, Lorraine Greaves, Ian D. Graham

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

Background

There has been a recent swell in activity by health research funding organizations and science journal editors to increase uptake of sex and gender considerations in study design, conduct and reporting in order to ensure that research results apply to everyone. However, examination of the implementation research literature reveals that attention to sex and gender has not yet infiltrated research methods in this field.

Discussion

The rationale for routinely considering sex and gender in implementation research is multifold. Sex and gender are important in decision-making, communication, stakeholder engagement and preferences for the uptake of interventions. Gender roles, gender identity, gender relations, and institutionalized gender influence the way in which an implementation strategy works, for whom, under what circumstances and why. There is emerging evidence that programme theories may operate differently within and across sexes, genders and other intersectional characteristics under various circumstances. Furthermore, without proper study, implementation strategies may inadvertently exploit or ignore, rather than transform thinking about sex and gender-related factors. Techniques are described for measuring and analyzing sex and gender in implementation research using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Summary

The present paper describes the application of methods for integrating sex and gender in implementation research. Consistently asking critical questions about sex and gender will likely lead to the discovery of positive outcomes, as well as unintended consequences. The result has potential to strengthen both the practice and science of implementation, improve health outcomes and reduce gender inequities.

Available only for authorised users

Mazure CM, Jones DP. Twenty years and still counting: including women as participants and studying sex and gender in biomedical research. BMC Women’s Health. 2015;15:94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Clayton JA, Collins FS. Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature. 2014;509:7500.CrossRef

Gates MF. Putting women and girls at the center of development. Science. 2014;345:6202.

Klein SL, Schiebinger L, Stefanick ML, Cahill L, Danska J, de Vries GJ, Kibbe MR, McCarthy MM, Mogil JS, Woodruff TK, Zucker I. Opinion: sex inclusion in basic research drives discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:17.

Johnson J, Sharman Z, Vissandjée B, Stewart DE. Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact? PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Canadian Insitute of Gender and Health. What a difference sex and gender make: a gender, sex and health research casebook. 2012. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/What_a_Difference_Sex_and_Gender_Make-en.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016.

Clayton JA. Studying both sexes: a guiding principle for biomedicine. FASEB J. 2015;30:519–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tannenbaum C, Schwarz JM, Clayton JA, de Vries GJ, Sullivan C. Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details. Biol Sex Differ. 2016;7:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pollitzer E, Buitendijk S, Hermann C, Muhlenbruch B, Schiebinger L. Integrating Gender in Horizon 2020. Pen Sci Technol. 2015;15:1–3. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/data.epws.org/DOCUMENTS/WEBSITE2016/PRESS/ST15+E+Pollitzer+et+al+1022+Atl_CH.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

10.

Johnson JL, Beaudet A. Sex and gender reporting in health research: why Canada should be a leader. Can J Public Health. 2012;104:e80–1.PubMed

11.

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1(1):1–9.CrossRef

12.

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. 2nd Edition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 424.

13.

Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care, 2nd Edition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 392.

14.

Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 528.

15.

Yancey AT, Gleen BA, Bell-Lewis L, Ford CL. Dissemination and implementation research in populatons with health disaparities. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 528.

16.

Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Farahnak LR, Hurlburt MS. Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Cochrane LJ, Olson CA, Murray S, Dupuis M, Tooman T, Hayes S. Gaps between knowing and doing: understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal health care. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007;27:94–102.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Durlak JA, Dupre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–50.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Francis JJ, O’Connor D, Curran J. Theories of behaviour change synthesized into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Sarmast H, Mosavianpour M, Collet J-P, Kissoon N. TDF (Theoretical Domain Framework): how inclusive are TDF domains and constructs compared to other tools for assessing barriers to change? BMC Health Services Res. 2014;14 Suppl 2:81.CrossRef

23.

The Cochrane Collaboration’s Methods Equity group. Available at: http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/igh-cochrane-corner. Accessed 14 April 2016.

24.

Runnels V, Tudiver S, Doull M, Boscoe M. The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey. Syst Rev. 2014;3:33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Doull M, Runnels V, Tudiver S, Boscoe M. Appraising the evidence: applying sex and gender based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. J Women’s Health. 2010;19:997–1003.CrossRef

26.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Equity considerations in EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2013. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/18%20Equity%20considerations%20in%20EPOC%20reviews%202013%2008%2012_1.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016.

27.

Ryan R. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. ‘Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group reviews: how to consider equity issues’. 2013. Available at: http://cccrg.cochrane.org/sites/cccrg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Equity.pdf Accessed 14 April 2016.

28.

Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: a primer for health research. Vancouver: Women’s Health Research Network; 2007. Available at: http://bccewh.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2007_BetterSciencewithSexandGenderPrimerforHealthResearch.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016.

29.

Wizeman TM, Pardue M. Institute of Medicine. Exploring the biological contributions to human health: Does sex matter? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. Available at https://www.nap.edu/read/10028/chapter/1. Accessed 14 April 2016.

30.

Fishman JR, Wick JG, Koenig BA. The use of sex and gender to define and characterize meaningful differences between men and women: a report of the task force on the NIH women’s health research agenda for the 21st Century. Nat Inst Health Office Res Women’s Health. 1999;1:15–9.

31.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Gender, sex and health research guide: a tool for CIHR applicants; 2010. Available at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32019.html. Accessed 14 April 2016.

32.

Schiebinger L, Stefanick ML. Gender matters in biological research and medical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(2):136–8.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Morgan R, George A, Ssali S, Hawkins K, Molyneux S, Theobald S. How to do (or not to do)… gender analysis in health systems research. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(8):1069–78. doi:10.1093/heapol/czw037.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Rossi AM, Pilote L. Let’s Talk About Sex…and Gender! Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(2 Suppl 1):S100–1.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Gender. Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment. Available at: https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/gender.html Accessed 14 April 2016.

36.

Bauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10–7.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality-an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1267–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

O’Neil J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie L, Clarke M, Evans T, Pardo Pardo J, Waters E, White H, Tugwell P. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:56–64.CrossRef

39.

Westbrook L, Saperstein A. New categories are not enough: rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender Soc. 2015;29:534–60.CrossRef

40.

Scheim AI, Bauer GR. Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey. J Sex Res. 2015;52:1–14.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Einstein G. Measuring Biological Sex. In Oliffe J, Greaves L, editors. Designing and Conducting gender sex and health research. Washington D.C.: SAGE; 2012. pp. 85-101.

42.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Gender and Health. Online Training Modules: Integrating Sex & Gender in Health Research. Available at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/igh-competency.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2015.

43.

Oliffe J, Greaves L. (eds). Designing and Conducting Gender Sex and Health Research. Washington D.C.: SAGE; 2012. p. 280.

44.

Pelletier R, Khan NA, Cox J, Daskalopoulou SS, Eisenberg MJ, Bacon SL, Lavoie KL, Daskupta K, Rabi D, Humphries KH, Norris CM, Thanassoulis G, Behlouli H, Pilote L, GENESIS-PRAXY Investigators. Sex versus gender-related characteristics: which predicts outcome after acute coronary syndrome in the young? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:127–35.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Smith PM, Koehoorn M. Measuring gender when you don’t have a gender measure: constructing a gender index using survey data. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15:82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Pelletier R, Ditto B, Pilote L. A composite measure of gender and its association with risk factors in patients with premature acute coronary syndrome. Psychosom Med. 2015;77:517–26.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. Washington D.C.: SAGE; 2013. p. 240

48.

Benko C, Pelster B. Gender. How Women Decide. Harvard Business Review 2013 September. https://hbr.org/2013/09/how-women-decide. Accessed 29 May 2016.

49.

Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:569–91.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Cuadrado I, García-Ael C, Molero F. Gender-typing of leadership: evaluations of real and ideal managers. Scand J Psychol. 2015;56:236–44.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Bart C, McQueen G. Why women make better directors. Int J Business Govern Ethics. 2013;8:93–9.CrossRef

52.

Banks IB, Dens N, De Pelsmacker P. The influence of gender on the effectiveness of probability markers in advertising. Int J Advertising. 2016;35:682–705.

53.

Zhu LL, Brescoli VL, Newman GE, Uhlmann EL. Macho nachos: The implicit effects of gendered food packaging on preferences for healthy and unhealthy foods. Soc Psychol. 2015;46:182–96.CrossRef

54.

Brown CS, Stone EA. Gender stereotypes and discrimination: how sexism impacts development. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2016;50:105–33.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Stanley N, Ellis J, Farrelly N, Hollinghurst S, Downe S. Preventing domestic abuse for children and young people: a review of school-based interventions. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2015;59:120–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Green JD, Kearns JC, Ledoux AM, Addis ME, Marx BP. The Association Between Masculinity and Nonsuicidal Self-Injury. Am J Mens Health. 2015. [Epub ahead of print]

57.

Creighton GM, Oliffe JL, Lohan M, Ogrodniczuk JS, Palm E. “Things I did not know”: Retrospectives on a Canadian rural male youth suicide using an instrumental photovoice case study. Health (London). 2016. [Epub ahead of print]

58.

Oliffe JL, Ogrodniczuk JS, Gordon SJ, Creighton G, Kelly MT, Black N, Mackenzie C. Stigma in male depression and suicide: a Canadian sex comparison study. Community Ment Health J. 2016;52:302–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Krysinska K, Batterham PJ, Christensen H. Differences in the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for suicidal ideation and behaviour in women and men: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Arch Suicide Res. 2016;16:1–21.

60.

Tannenbaum C, Lexchin J, Tamblyn R, Romans S. Indicators for measuring mental health: towards better surveillance. Health Policy. 2009;5:e177–86.

61.

Hirsh AT, Hollingshead NA, Matthias MS, Bair MJ, Kroenke K. The influence of patient sex, provider sex, and sexist attitudes on pain treatment decisions. J Pain. 2014;15:551–9.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Fraenkel L, Suter L, Weis L, Hawker GA. Variability in recommendations for total knee arthroplasty among rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:47–52.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Kululanga L, Sundby J, Malata A, Chirwa E. Striving to promote male involvement in maternal health care in rural and urban settings in Malawi - a qualitative study. Reprod Health. 2011;8:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Jennings L, Gagliardi L. Influence of health interventions on gender relations in developing countries: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

WHO Gender Responsive Assessment Scale: criteria for assessing programmes and policies. In: WHO Gender Mainstreaming Manual for Health Managers: a practical approach. 2015. Available at: http://www.who.int/gender/mainstreaming/GMH_Participant_GenderAssessmentScale.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2015.

66.

Greaves L, Pederson A, Poole N (Eds). Making It Better: Gender Transformative Health Promotion. Canadian Scholar’s Press/Women’s Press. 2014. Available at http://promotinghealthinwomen.ca/book/. Accessed 14 April 2016.

67.

Greaves L. Can tobacco control be transformative? Reducing gender inequity and tobacco use among vulnerable populations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:792–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Bottorff JL, Kalaw C, Johnson JL, Stewart M, Greaves L, Carey J. Couple dynamics during women’s tobacco reduction in pregnancy and postpartum. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;4:499–509.CrossRef

69.

Greaves L, Kalaw C, Bottorff J. Case studies of power and control related to tobacco use during pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues. 2007;17:325–32.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Bottorff JL, Carey J, Poole N, Greaves L, Urquhart C. Couples and Smoking: What you need to know when you are pregnant. 2008. Available from: http://facet.ubc.ca/wp-content/files/Couples-and-Smoking.pdf. Jointly published by the British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health and the Centre for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention, University of British Columbia Okanagan.

71.

Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:21–34.CrossRefPubMed

73.

O’Neil JM, Helms BJ, Gable RK, David L, Wrightman LS. Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles. 1986;14:335–50.

74.

Bem SL. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1977;45:196–205.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Spence JT, Helmreich R, Stapp J. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;32:29–39.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Mahalik JR, et al. Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychol Men Masc. 2003;4:3–25.CrossRef

77.

Sörlin A, Lindholm L, Ng N, Öhman A. Gender equality in couples and self-rated health-A survey study evaluating measurements of gender equality and its impact on health. Int J Equity Health. 2011;10:37–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Why sex and gender matter in implementation research
Authors: Cara Tannenbaum
Lorraine Greaves
Ian D. Graham
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0247-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Why sex and gender matter in implementation research

Abstract

Background

Discussion

Summary

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Discussion

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Exploring how individuals complete the choice tasks in a discrete choice experiment: an interview study

Erratum to: A Monte Carlo simulation study comparing linear regression, beta regression, variable-dispersion beta regression and fractional logit regression at recovering average difference measures in a two sample design

ImpRess: an Implementation Readiness checklist developed using a systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing cognitive stimulation for dementia

Identification of confounder in epidemiologic data contaminated by measurement error in covariates

Comparison of predictive modeling approaches for 30-day all-cause non-elective readmission risk

Statistical methodology for age-adjustment of the GH-2000 score detecting growth hormone misuse