Gender sensitivity in national health plans in Latin America and the European Union

Objectives: To evaluate the situation regarding gender sensitivity in national health plans in Latin America and the European Union for the decade 2000–2010. Methods: A systematic search and content analysis of national health plans were carried out within 37 countries. Gender sensitivity, defined as the extent to which a health plan considers gender as a central category and develops measures to reduce any gender-related inequalities, was analysed through an ad hoc checklist. Results: The description of health problems by sex was more frequent than intervention proposals aimed at reducing gender health disparities. The greatest number of specific intervention proposals targeted at overcoming gender-based health inequalities were associated with sexual and/or reproductive health, gender based violence, the working environment and human resources training. Compared to the European Union member states, Latin American health plans were found to be generally more gender sensitive. Conclusions: National health plans are still generally lacking in gender sensitivity. Disparities exist in health policy formulation in favour of men, whilst women's health continues to be identified mainly with reproductive health. If gender sensitivity is not taken into account, efforts to improve the quality of clinical care will be insufficient as gender inequalities will persist.

Offensive zones in beach volleyball: differences by gender

Gender differences in anthropometric and athletic properties (e.g. strength) as well as the different net heights (2.24 vs. 2.43 m) on the same field size (8x16 m) would be reflected in the game. The literature about differences between male and female playing characteristics in beach volleyball is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the differences by gender in the use of offensive zones. Study participants were 20 players (10 female and 10 male) who took part in the European Beach Volleyball Championship 2005 and 2006. Video recordings were made of the 659 points in eight matches played. The beach volleyball court was divided into six zones (z1 to z6). The results showed that men and women use different offensive zones and also were different in the percentages of ball out (15.53 and 27.38% respectively). Concretely, men players used more 1, 2, 4 and 5 zones and women 1 and 5 zones. A few differences were observed in the percentage the ball to the net (7.73 and 5.35% respectively). An understanding of the use of offensive zones is relevant to establish specific tactical training patterns for beach volleyball.

Looking twice at the gender equity index for public health impact

Background: It has been shown that gender equity has a positive impact on the everyday activities of people (decision making, income allocation, application and observance of norms/rules) which affect their health. Gender equity is also a crucial determinant of health inequalities at national level; thus, monitoring is important for surveillance of women’s and men’s health as well as for future health policy initiatives. The Gender Equity Index (GEI) was designed to show inequity solely towards women. Given that the value under scrutiny is equity, in this paper a modified version of the GEI is proposed, the MGEI, which highlights the inequities affecting both sexes. Methods: Rather than calculating gender gaps by means of a quotient of proportions, gaps in the MGEI are expressed in absolute terms (differences in proportions). The Spearman’s rank coefficient, calculated from country rankings obtained according to both indexes, was used to evaluate the level of concordance between both classifications. To compare the degree of sensitivity and obtain the inequity by the two methods, the variation coefficient of the GEI and MGEI values was calculated. Results: Country rankings according to GEI and MGEI values showed a high correlation (rank coef. = 0.95). The MGEI presented greater dispersion (43.8%) than the GEI (19.27%). Inequity towards men was identified in the education gap (rank coef. = 0.36) when using the MGEI. According to this method, many countries shared the same absolute value for education but with opposite signs, for example Azerbaijan (−0.022) and Belgium (0.022), reflecting inequity towards women and men, respectively. This also occurred in the empowerment gap with the technical and professional job component (Brunei:-0.120 vs. Australia, Canada Iceland and the U.S.A.: 0.120). Conclusion: The MGEI identifies and highlights the different areas of inequities between gender groups. It thus overcomes the shortcomings of the GEI related to the aim for which this latter was created, namely measuring gender equity, and is therefore of great use to policy makers who wish to understand and monitor the results of specific equity policies and to determine the length of time for which these policies should be maintained in order to correct long-standing structural discrimination against women.

Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials

Purpose: To determine the inclusion of women and the sex-stratification of results in moxifloxacin Clinical Trials (CTs), and to establish whether these CTs considered issues that specifically affect women, such as pregnancy and use of hormonal therapies. Previous publications about women’s inclusion in CTs have not specifically studied therapeutic drugs. Although this type of drug is taken by men and women at a similar rate, adverse effects occur more frequently in the latter. Methods: We reviewed 158 published moxifloxacin trials on humans, retrieved from MedLine and the Cochrane Library (1998–2010), to determine whether they complied with the gender recommendations published by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guideline. Results: Of a total of 80,417 subjects included in the moxifloxacin CTs, only 33.7% were women in phase I, in contrast to phase II, where women accounted for 45%, phase III, where they represented 38.3% and phase IV, where 51.3% were women. About 40.9% (n = 52) of trials were stratified by sex and 15.3% (n = 13) and 9% (n = 7) provided data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects, respectively. We found little information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Only 3 of the 59 journals that published the moxifloxacin CTs stated that authors should stratify their results by sex. Conclusions: Women are under-represented in the published moxifloxacin trials, and this trend is more marked in phase I, as they comprise a higher proportion in the other phases. Data by sex on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in moxifloxacin trials. These facts, together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, suggest that the therapeutic drug moxifloxacin is only a partially evidence-based medicine.