Does a Change in Health Research Funding Policy Related to the Integration of Sex and Gender Have an Impact?

被引:57
作者
Johnson, Joy [1 ]
Sharman, Zena [1 ]
Vissandjee, Bilkis [2 ]
Stewart, Donna E. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, CIHR Inst Gender & Hlth, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Univ Montreal, Fac Nursing, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Hlth Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH; CLINICAL-TRIALS; WOMEN; NIH; INCLUSION; BIAS; RAMIFICATIONS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0099900
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
070301 [无机化学]; 070403 [天体物理学]; 070507 [自然资源与国土空间规划学]; 090105 [作物生产系统与生态工程];
摘要
We analyzed the impact of a requirement introduced in December 2010 that all applicants to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research indicate whether their research designs accounted for sex or gender. We aimed to inform research policy by understanding the extent to which applicants across health research disciplines accounted for sex and gender. We conducted a descriptive statistical analysis to identify trends in application data from three research funding competitions (December 2010, June 2011, and December 2011) (N = 1459). We also conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of applicants' responses. Here we show that the proportion of applicants responding affirmatively to the questions on sex and gender increased over time (48% in December 2011, compared to 26% in December 2010). Biomedical researchers were least likely to report accounting for sex and gender. Analysis by discipline-specific peer review panel showed variation in the likelihood that a given panel will fund grants with a stated focus on sex or gender. These findings suggest that mandatory questions are one way of encouraging the uptake of sex and gender in health research, yet there remain persistent disparities across disciplines. These disparities represent opportunities for policy intervention by health research funders.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]
American Association of University Women, 2010, WHY SO FEW WOM SCI T
[2]
[Anonymous], 2001, EXPLORING BIOLOGICAL
[3]
[Anonymous], 2012, WHAT DIFF SEX GEND M
[4]
[Anonymous], INT J EQUITY HLTH, DOI [10.1186/1475-9276-6-13., DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-6-13]
[5]
[Anonymous], 2007, INCLUSION POLITICS D, DOI DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226213118.001.0001
[6]
Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research [J].
Beery, Annaliese K. ;
Zucker, Irving .
NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2011, 35 (03) :565-572
[7]
Blauwet LA, 2007, MAYO CLIN PROC, V82, P166
[8]
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2012, GEND SEX HLTH RES GU
[9]
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2013, AB US
[10]
NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies [J].
Clayton, Janine A. ;
Collins, Francis S. .
NATURE, 2014, 509 (7500) :282-283