Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27788671›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

Why sex and gender matter in implementation research.

Cara Tannenbaum, Lorraine Greaves, Ian D Graham

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
164citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

164 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 402 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Cannabis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

104 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cara TannenbaumInsitute of Gender and Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Canada. cara.tannenbaum@umontreal.ca.
Lorraine GreavesBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, Vancouver, Canada.
Ian D GrahamUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a recent swell in activity by health research funding organizations and science journal editors to increase uptake of sex and gender considerations in study design, conduct and reporting in order to ensure that research results apply to everyone. However, examination of the implementation research literature reveals that attention to sex and gender has not yet infiltrated research methods in this field. DISCUSSION: The rationale for routinely considering sex and gender in implementation research is multifold. Sex and gender are important in decision-making, communication, stakeholder engagement and preferences for the uptake of interventions. Gender roles, gender identity, gender relations, and institutionalized gender influence the way in which an implementation strategy works, for whom, under what circumstances and why. There is emerging evidence that programme theories may operate differently within and across sexes, genders and other intersectional characteristics under various circumstances. Furthermore, without proper study, implementation strategies may inadvertently exploit or ignore, rather than transform thinking about sex and gender-related factors. Techniques are described for measuring and analyzing sex and gender in implementation research using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The present paper describes the application of methods for integrating sex and gender in implementation research. Consistently asking critical questions about sex and gender will likely lead to the discovery of positive outcomes, as well as unintended consequences. The result has potential to strengthen both the practice and science of implementation, improve health outcomes and reduce gender inequities.

Indexed as

Sex FactorsFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignSex DistributionGenderGender transformative approachesImplementation scienceKnowledge translationRealist evaluationSex

Identifiers

PMID27788671
PMCPMC5084413
OpenAlexW2544651403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.