ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017
Incorporating sex, gender and vulnerable populations in a large multisite health research programme: The Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network as a case study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accessibility of Ontario pharmacies offering COVID-19 vaccination by rurality, community material deprivation, and ethnic concentration: a repeated cross-sectional geospatial analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Activities used by evidence networks to promote evidence-informed decision-making in the health sector- a rapid evidence review.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- The integration of sex and gender considerations in health policymaking: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- A systematic approach to equity assessment for digital health interventions: case example of mobile personal health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Addressing the dearth of critical gender analysis in public health and medical pedagogy: an interdisciplinary seminar to generate student-created teaching examples.Critical public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunders now frequently require that sex and gender be considered in research programmes, but provide little guidance about how this can be accomplished, especially in large research programmes. The purpose of this study is to present and evaluate a model for promoting sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) in a large health service research programme, the Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network (OPEN).
methodsA mixed method study incorporating (1) team members' critical reflection, (2) surveys (n = 37) and interviews (n = 23) at programme midpoint, and (3) an end-of-study survey in 2016 with OPEN research project teams (n = 6).
resultsIncorporating gender and vulnerable populations (GVP) as a cross-cutting theme, with a dedicated team and resources to promote GVP research across the programme, was effective and well received. Team members felt their knowledge was improved, and the programme produced several sex- and gender-related research outputs. Not all resources were well used, however, and better communication of the purposes and roles of the team could increase effectiveness.
conclusionsThe experience of OPEN suggests that dedicating resources for sex and gender research can be effective in promoting SGBA research, but that research programmes should also focus on communicating the importance of SGBA to their members.
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.