ArticleAtencion primaria2015
A tool to assess sex-gender when selecting health research projects.
Article in Atencion primaria, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of gender perspective in the use of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses: A systematic review.Nursing open · 2023Pooled it
- A deeper consideration of sex/gender in quantitative health research: a checklist for incorporating multidimensionality, variety, embodiment, and intersectionality throughout the whole research process.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- How to carry out participatory research that takes account of sex and gender issues: a scoping review of guidelines targeting health inequities.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2023Article
- Gender-based inequalities in the effects of housing on health: A critical review.SSM - population health · 2022Review
- Gender Perspective in Research on Interventions in Children with Experiences of Parental Gender-Based Violence: Application of GPIHR Criteria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- [Health policies, gender perspective and affective- sexual diversity: An unresolved matter?]Atencion primaria · 2020Article
- Incorporating sex, gender and vulnerable populations in a large multisite health research programme: The Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network as a case study.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Essential metrics for assessing sex & gender integration in health research proposals involving human participants.PloS one · 2017Article
- Integrating and evaluating sex and gender in health research.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the questionnaire "Gender Perspective in Health Research" (GPIHR) to assess the inclusion of gender perspective in research projects.
designValidation study in two stages. Feasibility was analysed in the first, and reliability, internal consistence and validity in the second. WHERE: Aragón Institute of Health Science, Aragón, Spain.
participantsGPIHR was applied to 118 research projects funded in national and international competitive tenders from 2003 to 2012. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of inter- and intra-observer reliability with Kappa index and internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha. Content validity analysed through literature review and construct validity with an exploratory factor analysis.
resultsValidated GPIHR has 10 questions: 3 in the introduction, 1 for objectives, 3 for methodology and 3 for research purpose. Average time of application was 13min Inter-observer reliability (Kappa) varied between 0.35 and 0.94 and intra-observer between 0.40 and 0.94. Theoretical construct is supported in the literature. Factor analysis identifies three levels of GP inclusion: "difference by sex", "gender sensitive" and "feminist research" with an internal consistency of 0.64, 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, which explain 74.78% of variance.
conclusionsGPIHR questionnaire is a valid tool to assess GP and useful for those researchers who would like to include GP in their projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.