IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Essential metrics for assessing sex & gender integration in health research proposals involving human participants

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanne Day
  • Robin Mason
  • Cara Tannenbaum
  • Paula A Rochon

Abstract

Integrating sex and gender in health research is essential to produce the best possible evidence to inform health care. Comprehensive integration of sex and gender requires considering these variables from the very beginning of the research process, starting at the proposal stage. To promote excellence in sex and gender integration, we have developed a set of metrics to assess the quality of sex and gender integration in research proposals. These metrics are designed to assist both researchers in developing proposals and reviewers in making funding decisions. We developed this tool through an iterative three-stage method involving 1) review of existing sex and gender integration resources and initial metrics design, 2) expert review and feedback via anonymous online survey (Likert scale and open-ended questions), and 3) analysis of feedback data and collective revision of the metrics. We received feedback on the initial metrics draft from 20 reviewers with expertise in conducting sex- and/or gender-based health research. The majority of reviewers responded positively to questions regarding the utility, clarity and completeness of the metrics, and all reviewers provided responses to open-ended questions about suggestions for improvements. Coding and analysis of responses identified three domains for improvement: clarifying terminology, refining content, and broadening applicability. Based on this analysis we revised the metrics into the Essential Metrics for Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Health Research Proposals Involving Human Participants, which outlines criteria for excellence within each proposal component and provides illustrative examples to support implementation. By enhancing the quality of sex and gender integration in proposals, the metrics will help to foster comprehensive, meaningful integration of sex and gender throughout each stage of the research process, resulting in better quality evidence to inform health care for all.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanne Day & Robin Mason & Cara Tannenbaum & Paula A Rochon, 2017. "Essential metrics for assessing sex & gender integration in health research proposals involving human participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182812
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182812
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182812&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182812?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2013. "Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 273-286.
    2. Rebecca Carabez & Marion Pellegrini & Andrea Mankovitz & Mickey Eliason & Megan Scott, 2015. "Does your organization use gender inclusive forms? Nurses' confusion about trans* terminology," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(21-22), pages 3306-3317, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Markmann & Alexander Spickermann & Heiko A. von der Gracht & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    2. Laura Abrardi & Elena Grinza & Alessandro Manello & Flavio Porta, 2024. "Work from home arrangements and organizational performance in Italian SMEs: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(6), pages 2821-2863, December.
    3. Rolf Becker, 2023. "Short- and long-term effects of reminders on panellists’ survey participation in a probability-based panel study with a sequential mixed-mode design," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4095-4119, October.
    4. Lafrenière, Darquise & Hurlimann, Thierry & Menuz, Vincent & Godard, Béatrice, 2014. "Evaluation of a cartoon-based knowledge dissemination intervention on scientific and ethical challenges raised by nutrigenomics/nutrigenetics research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 103-114.
    5. Paula Stephan & Giuseppe Scellato & Chiara Franzoni, 2015. "International Competition for PhDs and Postdoctoral Scholars: What Does (and Does Not) Matter," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 73-113.
    6. Ganguli, Ina & Gaulé, Patrick & Čugalj, Danijela Vuletić, 2022. "Chasing the academic dream: Biased beliefs and scientific labor markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 17-33.
    7. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Balk, B.M. & de Koster, M.B.M. & Kaps, C. & Zofío, J.L., 2017. "An Evaluation of Cross-Efficiency Methods, Applied to Measuring Warehouse Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2017-015-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Basa-Martinez, Diana Denise F. & Cabrera, Janet Y. & Dionaldo, LA G. & Orillo, Jonathan Gavino R. & Ramos, Paul John M. & Ocampo, Lanndon A., 2018. "An exploration of a respondent pre-qualifying framework to increase response rates in social media initiated online surveys," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 239-261.
    10. Gaul, Johannes J. & Keusch, Florian & Rostam-Afschar, Davud & Simon, Thomas, 2024. "Invitation Messages for Business Surveys: A Multi-Armed Bandit Experiment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1540, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Eric Joseph van Holm & Heyjie Jung & Eric W. Welch, 2021. "The impacts of foreignness and cultural distance on commercialization of patents," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 29-61, February.
    12. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    13. Gartner, Johannes & Fink, Matthias & Maresch, Daniela, 2022. "The Role of Fear of Missing Out and Experience in the Formation of SME Decision Makers’ Intentions to Adopt New Manufacturing Technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Narula, R. & Ashok, M. & Martinez-Noya, A., 2014. "End-user collaboration for process innovation in services: The role of internal resources," MERIT Working Papers 2014-019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Ganguli, Ina & Gaule, Patrick & Čugalj, Danijela Vuletić, 2020. "Biased Beliefs and Entry into Scientific Careers," IZA Discussion Papers 13475, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Ashok, Mona & Narula, Rajneesh & Martinez-Noya, Andrea, 2016. "How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services?," MERIT Working Papers 039, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Narula, R. & Ashok, M. & Martinez-Noya, A., 2014. "End-user collaboration for process innovation in services: The role of internal resources," MERIT Working Papers 019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Sommarberg, Matti & Mäkinen, Saku J., 2019. "A method for anticipating the disruptive nature of digitalization in the machine-building industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 808-819.
    19. Willcock, Simon & Camp, Brittany J. & Peh, Kelvin S.-H., 2017. "A comparison of cultural ecosystem service survey methods within South England," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 445-450.
    20. Jian Han & Miaodan Fang & Shenglu Ye & Chuansheng Chen & Qun Wan & Xiuying Qian, 2019. "Using Decision Tree to Predict Response Rates of Consumer Satisfaction, Attitude, and Loyalty Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, April.
    21. Feser, Daniel & Bizer, Kilian & Rudolph-Cleff, Annette & Schulze, Joachim, 2016. "Energy audits in a private firm environment: Energy efficiency consultants' cost calculation for innovative technologies in the housing sector," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 275, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.