Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37143983›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Operationalization of a multidimensional sex/gender concept for quantitative environmental health research and implementation in the KORA study: Results of the collaborative research project INGER.

Ute Kraus, Katharina Jacke, Lisa Dandolo, Malgorzata Debiak, Sophie Fichter, Katrin Groth, Marike Kolossa-Gehring, Christina Hartig, Sophie Horstmann, Alexandra Schneider and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [DIVERGesTOOL-development of a toolbox for the assessment of sex/gender diversity].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sex and Gender Dimensions in Hazard and Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology
    Review
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

12 authors.

Ute Kraus *German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Katharina Jacke *Gender and Science Research Unit, Institute of History, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lisa DandoloDepartment of Social Epidemiology, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Malgorzata DebiakSection II 1.2 Toxicology, Health-Related Environmental Monitoring, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Sophie FichterSection II 1.2 Toxicology, Health-Related Environmental Monitoring, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Katrin GrothSection II 1.2 Toxicology, Health-Related Environmental Monitoring, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Marike Kolossa-GehringSection II 1.2 Toxicology, Health-Related Environmental Monitoring, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Christina HartigDepartment of Social Epidemiology, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Sophie HorstmannDepartment of Social Epidemiology, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Alexandra SchneiderGerman Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Kerstin PalmGender and Science Research Unit, Institute of History, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Gabriele BolteDepartment of Social Epidemiology, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In environmental health research, sex and gender are not yet adequately considered. There is a need to improve data collection in population-based environmental health studies by comprehensively surveying sex/gender-related aspects according to gender theoretical concepts. Thus, within the joint project INGER we developed a multidimensional sex/gender concept which we aimed to operationalize and to test the operationalization for feasibility. Methods: In an iterative process, we created questionnaire modules which quantitatively captured the requirements of the INGER sex/gender concept. We deployed it in the KORA cohort (Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg, Germany) in 2019 and evaluated response and missing rates. Results: The individual sex/gender self-concept was surveyed Conclusion: We have shown how the multidimensional INGER sex/gender concept can be operationalized according to an European and North American understanding of sex/gender for use in quantitative research. The questionnaire modules proved feasible in an epidemiologic cohort study. Being a balancing act between theoretical concepts and its quantitative implementation our operationalization paves the way for an adequate consideration of sex/gender in environmental health research.

Indexed as

Gender IdentitySelf ConceptAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnairesenvironmental health researchgenderintersectionalityoperationalizationsexsex/gender

Identifiers

PMID37143983
PMCPMC10152671

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.