Top

International Journal for Equity in Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Review

Scoping ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in rehabilitation: (mis)representations and effects

Authors: Jessica Ott, Sarah N. Champagne, Abdulgafoor M. Bachani, Rosemary Morgan

Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Researchers have highlighted a large-scale global unmet need for rehabilitation. While sex and gender have been shown to interact with each other and with other social and structural factors to influence health and wellbeing, less is known about how sex and gender shape rehabilitation participation and outcomes within health systems.

Methods

Using an intersectional approach, we examine literature that explores the relationship between sex and/or gender and rehabilitation access, use, adherence, outcomes, and caregiving. Following a comprehensive search, 65 documents met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review of published literature. Articles were coded for rehabilitation-related themes and categorized by type of rehabilitation, setting, and age of participants, to explore how existing literature aligned with documented global rehabilitation needs. Responding to a common conflation of sex and gender in the existing literature and a frequent misrepresentation of sex and gender as binary, the researchers also developed a schema to determine whether existing literature accurately represented sex and gender.

Results

The literature generally described worse rehabilitation access, use, adherence, and outcomes and a higher caregiving burden for conditions with rehabilitation needs among women than men. It also highlighted the interacting effects of social and structural factors like socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic identity, lack of referral, and inadequate insurance on rehabilitation participation and outcomes. However, existing literature on gender and rehabilitation has focused disproportionately on a few types of rehabilitation among adults in high-income country contexts and does not correspond with global geographic or condition-based rehabilitation needs. Furthermore, no articles were determined to have provided an apt depiction of sex and gender.

Conclusion

This review highlights a gap in global knowledge about the relationship between sex and/or gender and rehabilitation participation and outcomes within health systems. Future research should rely on social science and intersectional approaches to elucidate how gender and other social norms, roles, and structures influence a gender disparity in rehabilitation participation and outcomes. Health systems should prioritize person-centered, gender-responsive care, which involves delivering services that are responsive to the complex social norms, roles, and structures that intersect to shape gender inequitable rehabilitation participation and outcomes in diverse contexts.

Available only for authorised users

Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10267):2006–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0.

Jesus TS, Landry MD, Hoenig H. Global need for physical rehabilitation: systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2017. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):980. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060980.

Jesus TS, Hoenig H. Crossing the global quality chasm in health care: where does rehabilitation stand? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(11):2215–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.07.001.

Connell R. Gender, health and theory: conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(11):1675–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.006.

WHO Headquarters. Gender and health. [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health.

Connell R. Gender in world perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2009.

Cicero EC, Reisner SL, Merwin EI, Humphreys JC, Silva SG. The health status of transgender and gender nonbinary adults in the United States. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0228765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228765.

Greaves L, Ritz S. Sex, gender and health: mapping the landscape of research and policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(5):2563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052563.

Fausto-Sterling A. Sex/gender: biology in a social world. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2012.CrossRef

10.

Phillips SP. Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come. Int J Equity Health. 2005;4:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-4-11.

11.

Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-8-14.

12.

Krieger N. Genders, sexes, and health: what are the connections - and why does it matter? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(4):652–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyg156.

13.

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. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czw037.

14.

Percival V, Richards E, MacLean T, Theobald S. Health systems and gender in post-conflict contexts: building back better? Conflict Health. 2014;8(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1505-8-19.

15.

WHO. Delivered by Women, Led by Men: A Gender and Equity Analysis of the Global Health and Social Workforce. 2019. Available from: http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/health-observer24/en/ [cited 17 May 2021]

16.

Rehabilitation. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation. [cited 9 Sep 2021]

17.

Assistive technology. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/assistive-technology#tab=tab_1. [cited 9 Sep 2021]

18.

Berg JA, Woods NF. Global women's health: a spotlight on caregiving. Nurs Clin North Am. 2009;44(3):375-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2009.06.003.

19.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

20.

Alcalde-Rubio L, Hernández-Aguado I, Parker LA, Bueno-Vergara E, Chilet-Rosell E. Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4.

21.

Williams A, Lyeo JS, Geffros S, Mouriopoulos A. The integration of sex and gender considerations in health policymaking: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(69). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01411-8.

22.

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(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6.

23.

Colantonio A. Sex, Gender, and Traumatic Brain Injury: A Commentary. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(2 Suppl):S1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.002.

24.

Hankivsky O. Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: implications of intersectionality. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(11):1712–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.029.

25.

Beckie TM, Beckstead JW. The effects of a cardiac rehabilitation program tailored for women on their perceptions of health: a randomized clinical trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2011;31(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0b013e3181f68acc.

26.

Jackson L, Leclerc J, Erskine Y, Linden W. Getting the most out of cardiac rehabilitation: a review of referral and adherence predictors. Heart. 2005;91(1):10–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2004.045559.

27.

Nalini M. Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation use after coronary bypass surgery in the west of Iran. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2014;34(4):263–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000070.

28.

Wiklund M, Fjellman-Wiklund A, Hammarström A, Stålnacke B-M, Lehti A. Access to rehabilitation: patient perceptions of inequalities in access to specialty pain rehabilitation from a gender and intersectional perspective. Glob Health Action. 2016;9(31542). https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.31542.

29.

Sutantri S, Cuthill F, Holloway A. “A bridge to normal”: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;18(8):744–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515119864208.

30.

Barth CA, Wladis A, Blake C, Bhandarkar P, O’sullivan C. Users of rehabilitation services in 14 countries and territories affected by conflict, 1988–2018. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(9):599–614. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.249060.CrossRef

31.

Borg J, Östergren P-O. Users’ perspectives on the provision of assistive technologies in Bangladesh: awareness, providers, costs and barriers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(4):301–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.974221.CrossRef

32.

Akuamoah-Boateng H. Self-reported vision health status among older people in the Kassena-Nankana District, Ghana. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:19012. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v6i0.19012.CrossRef

33.

Pal J, Lakshmanan M. Mobile devices and weak ties: a study of vision impairments and workplace access in Bangalore. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(4):323–31. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.974224.CrossRef

34.

Magnusson L, Ramstrand N, Fransson EI, Ahlström G. Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: a cross-sectional study. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(5):438–46. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1780.

35.

Oosenbrug E, Marinho RP, Zhang J, Marzolini S, Colella TJF, Pakosh M, et al. Sex Differences in Cardiac Rehabilitation Adherence: A Meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(11):1316–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.036.

36.

Samayoa L, Grace SL, Gravely S, Scott LB, Marzolini S, Colella TJF. Sex differences in cardiac rehabilitation enrollment: A meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30(7):793–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2013.11.007.

37.

Green TL, King KM. The trajectory of minor stroke recovery for men and their female spousal caregivers: literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58(6):517–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04321.x.

38.

Gosman-Hedström G, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. ‘Mastering an unpredictable everyday life after stroke’--older women’s experiences of caring and living with their partners. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012;26(3):587–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.00975.x.

39.

Gosman-Hedström G, Claesson L, Blomstrand C. Consequences of severity at stroke onset for health-related quality of life (HRQL) and informal care: A 1-year follow-up in elderly stroke survivors. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008;47(1):79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2007.07.006.CrossRef

40.

Pierce LL, Steiner V, Alamina F, Onyekelu D, Stevenson S. Male caregivers report problems in caring at home after spouses survive stroke. Home Healthc Now. 2019;37(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/NHH.0000000000000705.

41.

Appelros P, Nydevik I, Terént A. Living setting and utilisation of ADL assistance one year after a stroke with special reference to gender differences. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(1):43–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500165278.CrossRef

42.

Epstein-Lubow GP, Beevers CG, Bishop DS, Miller IW. Family functioning is associated with depressive symptoms in caregivers of acute stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(6):947–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.12.014.

43.

McCullagh E, Brigstocke G, Donaldson N, Kalra L. Determinants of caregiving burden and quality of life in caregivers of stroke patients. Stroke. 2005;36(10):2181–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000181755.23914.53.

44.

Lindsay S, Tsybina I. Predictors of unmet needs for communication and mobility assistive devices among youth with a disability: the role of socio-cultural factors. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(1):10–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.514972.CrossRef

45.

Côté D, Coutu M. A critical review of gender issues in understanding prolonged disability related to musculoskeletal pain: how are they relevant to rehabilitation? Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(2):87–102. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280903026572.

46.

Ahlsen B, Mengshoel AM, Solbrække KN. Troubled bodies - troubled men: A narrative analysis of men’s stories of chronic muscle pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(21):1765–73. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.660601.

47.

Brundage JA, Williams RD, Powell K, Raab J, Engler C, Rosin N, et al. An interdisciplinary sexual health rehabilitation program for veterans with spinal cord injury: case reports. Sex Disabil. 2020;38:343–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-020-09629-0.CrossRef

48.

Aloisi AM, Berlincioni V, Torta R, Nappi RE, Tassorelli C, Barale F, et al. The role of gender, psycho-social factors and anthropological-cultural dimensions on pain in neurorehabilitation. Evidence and recommendations from the Italian consensus conference on pain in neurorehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(5):730–40.

49.

Hay CC, Graham JE, Pappadis MR, Sander AM, Hong I, Reistetter TA. The impact of One’s sex and social living situation on rehabilitation outcomes after a stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;99(1):48–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001276.

50.

Paolucci S, Bragoni M, Coiro P, De Angelis D, Fusco FR, Morelli D, et al. Is sex a prognostic factor in stroke rehabilitation? A matched comparison. Stroke. 2006;37(12):2989–94. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000248456.41647.3d.

51.

Kay E, Deutsch A, Chen D, Semik P, Rowles D, Kay E, et al. Effects of gender on inpatient rehabilitation outcomes in the elderly with incomplete paraplegia from nontraumatic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2010;33(4):379–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2010.11689716.

52.

Aas RW, Haveraaen LA, Brouwers EPM, Skarpaas LS. Who among patients with acquired brain injury returned to work after occupational rehabilitation? The rapid-return-to-work-cohort-study. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(21):2561–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1354234.

53.

Brauer J, Coates A, Schroeder A. Addressing sexuality for women with an SCI. OT Pract. 2010;15(2):12–5.

54.

Thomas FP, Murphy C. Addressing disparities in the care of women with spinal cord injury: The Canadian perspective. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019;42(sup1):3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2019.1657749.

55.

Tsuda K. Sex hormones and stroke rehabilitation in men and women. Stroke. 2007;38(6):e32. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.479105.

56.

Harris JE, Colantonio A, Bushnik T, Constantinidou F, Dawson D, Goldin-Lauretta Y, et al. Advancing the health and quality-of-life of girls and women after traumatic brain injury: Workshop summary and recommendations. Brain Inj. 2012;26(2):177–82. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2011.635361.

57.

Turunen-Taheri S, Carlsson P-I, Johnson A-C, Hellström S. Severe-to-profound hearing impairment: demographic data, gender differences and benefits of audiological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(23):2766–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1477208.

58.

Lavie CJ, Bennett A, Arena R. Enhancing Cardiac Rehabilitation in Women. J Women's Health. 2017;26(8):817–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6476.

59.

Kuehn BM. Women may benefit from cardiac rehabilitation programs tailored to their specific needs. Circulation. 2017;135(6):612–3. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.027064.

60.

Rolfe DE, Sutton EJ, Landry M, Sternberg L, Price JA. Women’s experiences accessing a women-centered cardiac rehabilitation program: a qualitative study. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;25(4):332–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0b013e3181c83f6b.

61.

Galati A, Piccoli M, Tourkmani N, Sgorbini L, Rossetti A, Cugusi L, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation in women: state of the art and strategies to overcome the current barriers. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2018;19(12):689–97. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000730.

62.

Parkosewich JA. Cardiac rehabilitation barriers and opportunities among women with cardiovascular disease. Cardiol Rev. 2008;16(1):36–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/CRD.0b013e31815aff8b.

63.

Resurrección DM, Motrico E, Rubio-Valera M, Mora-Pardo JA, Moreno-Peral P. Reasons for dropout from cardiac rehabilitation programs in women: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200636.

64.

Resurrección DM, Motrico E, Rigabert A, Rubio-Valera M, Conejo-Cerón S, Pastor L, et al. Barriers for nonparticipation and dropout of women in cardiac rehabilitation programs: A systematic review. J Women's Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(8):849–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6249.

65.

Daniels KM, Arena R, Lavie CJ, Forman DE. Cardiac rehabilitation for women across the lifespan. Am J Med. 2012;125(9):937.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.10.028.

66.

Sanderson BK, Shewchuk RM, Bittner V. Cardiac rehabilitation and women: What keeps them away? J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2010;30(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0b013e3181c85859.

67.

Sedlak TL, Humphries KH. Cardiac rehabilitation adherence: another gender-treatment paradox. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(11):1283–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.12.032.

68.

Cossette S, Maheu-Cadotte MA, Mailhot T, Fontaine G, Dupuis J, Cournoyer A, et al. Sex-and gender-related factors associated with cardiac rehabilitation enrollment: a secondary analysis among systematically referred patients. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2019;39(4):259–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000364.

69.

Midence L, Arthur HM, Oh P, Stewart DE, Grace SL. Women’s health Behaviours and psychosocial well-being by cardiac rehabilitation program model: A randomized controlled trial. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(8):956–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.10.007.

70.

Way KL, Reed JL. Meeting the needs of women in cardiac rehabilitation. Circulation. 2019;139(10):1247–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037754.

71.

Angus JE, Dale CM, Nielsen LS, Kramer-Kile M, Lapum J, Pritlove C, et al. Gender matters in cardiac rehabilitation and diabetes: using Bourdieu’s concepts. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.003.

72.

Sutton EJ, Rolfe DE, Landry M, Sternberg L, Price JAD. Cardiac rehabilitation and the therapeutic environment: the importance of physical, social, and symbolic safety for programme participation among women. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(8):1834–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06041.x.

73.

Terada T, Chirico D, Tulloch HE, Scott K, Pipe AL, Reed JL. Sex differences in psychosocial and cardiometabolic health among patients completing cardiac rehabilitation. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2019;44(11):1237–45. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2018-0876.

74.

Hurley MC, Arthur HM, Chessex C, Oh P, Turk-Adawi K, Grace SL. Burden, screening, and treatment of depressive and anxious symptoms among women referred to cardiac rehabilitation: a prospective study. BMC Womens Health. 2017;17(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0367-1.

75.

Ghisi GLM, Chaves GSDS, Bennett A, Lavie CJ, Grace SL. The paucity of data addressing the effects of cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity in women. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(4):502.e1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2017.11.001.

76.

Ghisi GLM, Chaves GSDS, Bennett A, Lavie CJ, Grace SL. The effects of cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity in women: a meta-analysis attempt. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2019;39(1):39–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000351.

77.

Gee MA, Viera AJ, Miller PF, Tolleson-Rinehart S. Functional capacity in men and women following cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2014;34(4):255–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000066.

78.

McCarthy MM, Vaughan Dickson V, Chyun D. Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation in women with cardiovascular disease: an integrative review. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;26(5):E1–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0b013e3181f877e9.

79.

Grace SL, Gravely-Witte S, Kayaniyil S, Brual J, Suskin N, Stewart DE. A multisite examination of sex differences in cardiac rehabilitation barriers by participation status. J Women's Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(2):209–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.0753.

80.

Scott LB. A call for intervention research to overcome barriers to women’s enrollment in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programs. J Women's Health. 2010;19(11):1951–3. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2416.

81.

Quigley A, McArthur C, Parker R, Gahagan J. Sex cells: why we need sex- and gender-based analyses in rehabilitation research now. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;64:(6):101472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2020.101472.

82.

Jette AM. The importance of collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in rehabilitation research. Phys Ther. 2020;100(8):1235–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa104.CrossRef

83.

Scherer M, Dicowden M. Organizing future research and intervention efforts on the impact and effects of gender differences on disability and rehabilitation: the usefulness of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(3):161–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701532292.

84.

Holm LV, Hansen DG, Johansen C, Vedsted P, Larsen PV, Kragstrup J, et al. Participation in cancer rehabilitation and unmet needs: A population-based cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(11):2913–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1420-0.CrossRef

85.

Silver JK. Rehabilitation in women with breast cancer. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am. 2007;18(3):521–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2007.05.003.

86.

Peterson LJ, Meng H, Dobbs D, Hyer K. Gender differences in mobility device use among U.S. older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2017;72(5):827–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw081.

87.

Ishigami Y, Jutai J, Kirkland S. Assistive device use among community-dwelling older adults: A profile of Canadians using hearing, vision, and mobility devices in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Can J Aging. 2020;40(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980819000692.

88.

Chang N-C, Dai C-Y, Lin W-Y, Chien C-Y, Hsieh M-H, Ho K-Y. Perception of hearing impairment and the willingness to use hearing aids in an elderly population in southern Taiwan: A community-based study. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(9):491–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1182651.

89.

WHO. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health ICF Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 2002. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf [cited 2021 May 13]

90.

Ott J, Morgan R. Why sex and gender matter in interventions and research for rehabilitation within health systems. 2021. Available from: https://www.relabhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Gender-Rehab.pdf [cited 15 Jun 2021]

91.

Fausto-Sterling A. The bare bones of sex: part 1 - sex and gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2005;30(2):1491–527. https://doi.org/10.1086/424932.

92.

Rapp R. Gender, body, biomedicine: how some feminist concerns dragged reproduction to the Center of Social Theory. Med Anthropol Q. 2001;15(4):466–77. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.2001.15.4.466.

93.

Yun DW, Choi JS. Person-centered rehabilitation care and outcomes: a systematic literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;93:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.02.012.

94.

Gibson BE, Terry G, Setchell J, Bright FAS, Cummins C, Kayes NM. The micro-politics of caring: tinkering with person-centered rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(11):1529–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1587793.

95.

Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality-an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1267–73. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750.

Title: Scoping ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in rehabilitation: (mis)representations and effects
Authors: Jessica Ott
Sarah N. Champagne
Abdulgafoor M. Bachani
Rosemary Morgan
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1475-9276
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01787-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Scoping ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in rehabilitation: (mis)representations and effects

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Inequities in ambulance allocation associated with transfer delay and mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients: evidence from 89 emergency medical stations in China

Women’s participation in the prevention and control of dengue using environmental methods in the global south: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Region of birth differences in healthcare navigation and optimisation: the interplay of racial discrimination and socioeconomic position

Socio-economic determinants of healthcare costs in early life: a register-based study in the Netherlands

Continued adherence to community-based health insurance scheme in two districts of northeast Ethiopia: application of accelerated failure time shared frailty models

How and why buy-in for health in all policies was facilitated in Ecuador: a realist case study of Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir