Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr 10:3:33.
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-33.

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

Affiliations

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

Vivien Runnels et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] [ http://www.cochrane-handbook.org]
    1. The Cochrane Library Health Technology Assessment Database. [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/cochrane_clhta_articles_fs.html]
    1. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):35–48. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308549. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zief S, Agodini R. Supporting Policy and Program Decisions: Recommendations for Conducting High Quality Systematic Evidence Reviews. [ http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/…/systematic_reviews_ib.pdf]
    1. Welch V, Tugwell P, Petticrew M, de Montigny J, Ueffing E, Kristjansson B, McGowan J, Benkhalti Jandu M, Wells GA, Brand K, Smylie J. How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;12:MR000028. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources