Gender-sensitive reporting in medical research

Sex and gender differences influence the health and wellbeing of men and women. Although studies have drawn attention to observed differences between women and men across diseases, remarkably little research has been pursued to systematically investigate these underlying sex differences. Women continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials, and even in studies in which both men and women participate, systematic analysis of data to identify potential sex-based differences is lacking. Standards for reporting of clinical trials have been established to ensure provision of complete, transparent and critical information. An important step in addressing the gender imbalance would be inclusion of a gender perspective in the next Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline revision. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, as a set of well-recognized and widely used guidelines for authors and biomedical journals, should similarly emphasize the ethical obligation of authors to present data analyzed by gender as a matter of routine. Journal editors are also promoters of ethical research and adequate standards of reporting, and requirements for inclusion of gender analyses should be integrated into editorial policies as a matter of urgency.

Gender inequalities in occupational health related to the unequal distribution of working and employment conditions: a systematic review

Introduction: Gender inequalities exist in work life, but little is known about their presence in relation to factors examined in occupation health settings. The aim of this study was to identify and summarize the working and employment conditions described as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health in studies related to occupational health published between 1999 and 2010. Methods: A systematic literature review was undertaken of studies available in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sociological Abstracts, LILACS, EconLit and CINAHL between 1999 and 2010. Epidemiologic studies were selected by applying a set of inclusion criteria to the title, abstract, and complete text. The quality of the studies was also assessed. Selected studies were qualitatively analysed, resulting in a compilation of all differences between women and men in the prevalence of exposure to working and employment conditions and work-related health problems as outcomes. Results: Most of the 30 studies included were conducted in Europe (n=19) and had a cross-sectional design (n=24). The most common topic analysed was related to the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards (n=8). Employed women had more job insecurity, lower control, worse contractual working conditions and poorer self-perceived physical and mental health than men did. Conversely, employed men had a higher degree of physically demanding work, lower support, higher levels of effort-reward imbalance, higher job status, were more exposed to noise and worked longer hours than women did. Conclusions: This systematic review has identified a set of working and employment conditions as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health from the occupational health literature. These results may be useful to policy makers seeking to reduce gender inequalities in occupational health, and to researchers wishing to analyse these determinants in greater depth.

Welfare state regimes and gender inequalities in the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards

Background: Gender inequalities in the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards are well established. However, little is known about how welfare state regimes influence these inequalities. Objectives: To examine the relationship between welfare state regimes and gender inequalities in the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards in Europe, considering occupational social class. Methods: We used a sample of 27, 465 workers from 28 European countries. Dependent variables were high strain, iso-strain, and effort-reward imbalance, and the independent was gender. We calculated the prevalence and prevalence ratio separately for each welfare state regime and occupational social class, using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: More female than male managers/professionals were exposed to: high strain, iso-strain, and effort–reward imbalance in Scandinavian [adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 2·26; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1·87–2·75; 2·12: 1·72–2·61; 1·41: 1·15–1·74; respectively] and Continental regimes (1·43: 1·23–1·54; 1·51: 1·23–1·84; 1·40: 1·17–1·67); and to high strain and iso-strain in Anglo-Saxon (1·92: 1·40–2·63; 1·85: 1·30–2·64; respectively), Southern (1·43: 1·14–1·79; 1·60: 1·18–2·18), and Eastern regimes (1·56: 1·35–1·81; 1·53: 1·28–1·83). Conclusion: Gender inequalities in the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards were not lower in those welfare state regimes with higher levels of universal social protection policies.