ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021
A 10-year longitudinal evaluation of science policy interventions to promote sex and gender in health research.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Integrating sex and gender in studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2022Pooled it
- Examination of Sex-Specific Participant Inclusion in Exercise Physiology Endothelial Function Research: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Pooled it
- Twenty years of sex and gender science in health research: a policy statement from the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.Biology of sex differences · 2026Review
- Growing together: reflections on Canada's first interdisciplinary women's health research training program.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Article
- Reframing the sex debate in scientific research: three frameworks to support rigor without rigidity.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Initial validity and reliability testing of the SGBA-5.PloS one · 2025Article
- Are sex and gender dimensions accounted for in NICE guidelines? A systematic review of 223 clinical guidelines.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- The impact of sex/gender-specific funding and editorial policies on biomedical research outcomes: a cross-national analysis (2000-2021).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Integrating gender analysis into research: reflections from the Gender-Net Plus workshop.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in Australian health and medical research, policy and practice.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Training in the implementation of sex and gender research policies: an evaluation of publicly available online courses.Biology of sex differences · 2024Review
- Review
- Integrating sex and gender into biomedical research requires policy and culture change.npj women's health · 2024Article
- The relationship between gender and pharmacology.Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 2024Article
- Catalysing change in health and medical research policy: an Australian case study of deliberative democracy to reform sex and gender policy recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- A roadmap for sex- and gender-disaggregated health research.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Are we moving the dial? Canadian health research funding trends for women's health, 2S/LGBTQ + health, sex, or gender considerations.Biology of sex differences · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Sex Differences in Preclinical Pharmacology Research: How Far Is Left to Go?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has implemented multicomponent interventions to increase the uptake of sex and gender in grant applications. Interventions included mandatory reporting on applicant forms, development of resources for applicants and evaluators, and grant review requirements. Here, we aim to inform science policy implementation by describing the 10-year outcomes and lessons learned from these interventions.
methodsThis is a prospective longitudinal study. The population is all applicants across 15 investigator-initiated CIHR competitions from 2011 to 2019 and grant evaluators from 2018 to 2019. Quantitative data were derived from applicants' and grant evaluators' mandatory reporting of sex and gender integration in the grants management database. The application was the unit of analysis. Trends in sex and gender uptake in applications were plotted over time, stratified by research area. Univariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between the sex of the applicant and the uptake of sex and gender, and the latter with funding success. Qualitative review of the quality and appropriateness of evaluators' comments informed the development of discipline-specific training to peer review committee members. Feedback was compiled from a subset of evaluators on the perceived usefulness of the educational materials using a brief questionnaire.
resultsSince 2011, 39,390 applications were submitted. The proportion that reported integration of sex rose from 22 to 83%, and gender from 12 to 33%. Population health research applications paid the greatest attention to gender (82%). Across every competition, applications with female principal investigators were more likely to integrate sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-1.63) and gender (OR 2.40, 95% CI 2.29-2.51) than those who identified as male. Since 2018, applications that scored highly for the integration of sex (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.50-2.50) and gender (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.83-3.50) were more likely to be funded. Qualitative observations revealed persistent conflation of the terms sex and gender. Eighty-six percent of evaluators appreciated the tailored discipline-specific coaching.
conclusionsA number of policy interventions improved sex and gender uptake in grant applications, with higher success rates observed over time for applications that integrated sex and gender. Other funders' action plans around sex and gender integration may be informed from our experiences of the timing, type and targets of the different interventions, specifically those directed at evaluators.
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.