Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Occupational and Environmental Medicine logoLink to Occupational and Environmental Medicine
. 2000 Aug;57(8):521–527. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.8.521

How is sex considered in recent epidemiological publications on occupational risks?

I Niedhammer 1, M Saurel-Cubizolles 1, M Piciotti 1, S Bonenfant 1
PMCID: PMC1740002  PMID: 10896958

Abstract

OBJECTIVES—Although women account for almost half the working population in industrialised countries, a sex bias persists in publications on medical research in general and occupational health in particular. The objective was to review recent publications on how sex is considered in epidemiological studies of occupational health, and to answer the following questions: are men and women studied equally, what are the respective characteristics of the studies which comprise only men, only women, and both, and what strategy of data analysis is chosen by the authors to take account of the sex factor in mixed studies.
MATERIALS—This review was based on publications in six journals during the year 1997, and included all the original articles reporting an epidemiological study of occupational health.
RESULTS—In all, 348 articles were reviewed. In 40 articles (11%), the sex of the study population was not specified. In 177 articles (51%), the study population was mixed. In 108 (31%), the population consisted exclusively of men, and in only 23 (7%), exclusively of women. Even when study populations were mixed, they included fewer women than men. The sex composition of the population was related to the occupational risk factor considered, and also to health outcome. Industrial sector workers, and exposure to chemicals were more likely to be studied in samples of men. Mortality and health outcomes such as neoplasms and cardiovascular diseases were also more often studied among men. Surprisingly, study design differed significantly according to the sex of the population, and prospective studies, cohort studies, and exposed versus non-exposed studies were more often carried out in samples of men. Among the 177 mixed studies, sex was not investigated in over a quarter (27%). In 26 articles (15%), sex was not taken into account, but the authors attempted to justify this decision. In 46 mixed studies (26%), the results were adjusted for sex, and in 46 (26%), the authors gave separate results for men and women. In 11 studies (6%), more complete strategies of data analysis were chosen, including research for interactions or adjustment, followed by stratification.
CONCLUSION—This review of recent publications in occupational health epidemiology showed that women are still less often studied than men, and that the sex factor is not investigated in many mixed studies. The results therefore underline the need for further research on occupational hazards among women, and on sex differences.


Keywords: review; epidemiology; occupational health; sex bias

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (140.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Gijsbers van Wijk C. M., van Vliet K. P., Kolk A. M., Everaerd W. T. Symptom sensitivity and sex differences in physical morbidity: a review of health surveys in the United States and The Netherlands. Women Health. 1991;17(1):91–124. doi: 10.1300/J013v17n01_06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gold E. B., Lasley B. L., Schenker M. B. Introduction: rationale for an update. Reproductive hazards. Occup Med. 1994 Jul-Sep;9(3):363–372. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hatch M., Moline J. Women, work, and health. Am J Ind Med. 1997 Sep;32(3):303–308. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199709)32:3<303::aid-ajim18>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hoosain M., Jewkes R., Maphumulo S. Gender audit of health research--10 years of the South African Medical Journal. S Afr Med J. 1998 Aug;88(8):982–985. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. ILLSLEY R., BILLEWICZ W. Z., THOMSON A. M. Prematurity and paid work during pregnancy. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1954 Oct;8(4):153–156. doi: 10.1136/jech.8.4.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lennon M. C., Rosenfield S. Women and mental health: the interaction of job and family conditions. J Health Soc Behav. 1992 Dec;33(4):316–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Macintyre S. Gender differences in the perceptions of common cold symptoms. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Jan;36(1):15–20. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90301-J. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Messing K., Tissot F., Saurel-Cubizolles M. J., Kaminski M., Bourgine M. Sex as a variable can be a surrogate for some working conditions: factors associated with sickness absence. J Occup Environ Med. 1998 Mar;40(3):250–260. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199803000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Paul J. A., van Dijk F. J., Frings-Dresen M. H. Work load and musculoskeletal complaints during pregnancy. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1994 Jun;20(3):153–159. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ruiz M. T., Verbrugge L. M. A two way view of gender bias in medicine. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997 Apr;51(2):106–109. doi: 10.1136/jech.51.2.106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stellman J. M. Where women work and the hazards they may face on the job. J Occup Med. 1994 Aug;36(8):814–825. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Waldron I. Sex differences in human mortality: the role of genetic factors. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(6):321–333. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90234-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zahm S. H., Pottern L. M., Lewis D. R., Ward M. H., White D. W. Inclusion of women and minorities in occupational cancer epidemiologic research. J Occup Med. 1994 Aug;36(8):842–847. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES