ReviewDialogues in health2026
Gender-responsive infectious disease models: Guidelines and systematic scoping review.
Review in Dialogues in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Sex and gender influence infectious disease outcomes through biological and social mechanisms. Gender norms, roles, and behaviors affect exposure, care-seeking, and service access, yet many infectious disease models overlook these factors. Methods: To provide guidance to researchers considering sex/gender in epidemiological models, we propose structured guidelines for developing gender-responsive infectious disease models, adapted from an established monitoring and evaluation framework. Recommendations include: 1) using sex/gender-disaggregated or sex/gender-specific populations; 2) incorporating an additional social stratifier (e.g., age, race/ethnicity); 3) maintaining stratification in results; 4) addressing the needs, rights, and preferences of gender groups; and 5) grounding models in context with participation from target groups. To provide examples, we conducted a scoping review using these criteria, drawing from HIV, COVID-19, and malaria literature. Findings: Of 7303 studies screened, 45 met inclusion criteria. Most modeled HIV (96%), used compartmental (73%) or agent-based (22%) approaches, and included sexual orientation or occupation as an additional stratifier. Studies contextualized their models by discussing local healthcare systems, unequal access to care, stigma, gender norms in partnership dynamics, and occupational risk. Interpretation: Gender-responsive modeling is feasible but uncommon beyond sexually transmitted infections. Applying intersectional, context-specific approaches can reveal disparities and inform equitable, efficient interventions. These guidelines can be adapted to address other health disparities.
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.