Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
editorial
. 2013 Jan 1;104(1):e80–e81. doi: 10.1007/BF03405660

Sex and Gender Reporting in Health Research: Why Canada Should Be a Leader

Joy L Johnson 117,, Alain Beaudet 217
PMCID: PMC6973991  PMID: 23618110

Abstract

Sex and gender have been demonstrated to influence all domains of health, from basic mechanisms of disease development to health service utilization. It is therefore no longer acceptable to ignore sex and gender issues in health research reports if these reports are to be deemed accurate. Funding agencies and journals have been identified as primary change agents in health research systems. Canada is making progress on the funding side of the equation - applicants to Canada’s federal health research funding agency are required to justify why sex and gender are relevant or not to their research designs. We argue that it is now time for Canada’s leading health research journals to follow suit. We have a unique opportunity in Canada to demonstrate leadership in doing science better with sex and gender - and we should not let it be missed.

Key words: Sex, publishing, research design, policy

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.

References

  • 1.Krieger N. Genders, sexes, and health: What are the connections - and why does it matter? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:652–57. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Putting gender on the agenda [Editorial]. Nature. 2010;465:665. doi: 10.1038/465665a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim AM, Tingen CM, Woodruff TK. Sex bias in trials and treatment must end. Nature. 2010;465:688–89. doi: 10.1038/465688a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zucker I, Beery AK. Males still dominate animal studies. Nature. 2010;465:690. doi: 10.1038/465690a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wald C, Wu C. Of mice and women: The bias in animal models. Science. 2010;327:1571–72. doi: 10.1126/science.327.5973.1571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Foulkes MA. After inclusion, information and inference: Reporting on clinical trials results after 15 years of monitoring inclusion of women. J Women’s Health. 2011;20:829–36. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Institute of Medicine. Sex-specific reporting of scientific research: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press; 2012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Available at: http://www.ICMJE.org (Accessed May 3, 2012). [PubMed]
  • 9.Doull M, Runnels VE, Tudiver S, Boscoe M. Appraising the evidence: Applying sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. J Women’s Health. 2010;19:997–1003. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Berger JS, Roncaglioni MC, Avanzini F, Pangrazzi I, Tognoni G, Brown DL. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in women and men: A sex-specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:306–13. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.3.306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES