Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of sex/gender sensitivity in each section of the selected articles – Synopsis of the results

From: Examples of sex/gender sensitivity in epidemiological research: results of an evaluation of original articles published in JECH 2006–2014

Reference Background Study design Statistical analysis Discussion
1. Bambra et al. [50] ++ + ++
2. Berntsson et al. [51] ++ ++ + ++
3. Boone-Heinonen & Gordon-Larsen [52] + + +
4. Borrell et al. [53] + ++
5. Escribà-Agüir et al. [54] ++ ++ + +
6. Escribà-Agüir & Artazcoz [55] ++ ++ + +
7. Gissler et al. [56] + +
8. Haukenes et al. [57] +
9. Harryson et al. [58] + ++ + +
10. Hernanadez & Pressler [59] + + +
11. Heys et al. [60] ++ ++ +
12. Hollander et al. [61] ++ + +
13. Ikeda et al. [62] ++ + + ++
14. Kavanagh et al. [63] ++ + ++ ++
15. King et al. [64] +
16. Kolarcik et al. [65] + + +
17. Kovess-Masfety et al. [66] ++ + + ++
18. Mansdotter et al. [67] ++ ++ ++ ++
19. Matheson et al. [68] ++ + ++ ++
20. Matheson et al. [69] ++ + ++ +
21. Matheson et al. [70] + + + +
22. Matheson et al. [71] + + +
23. McCormack et al. [72] + +
24. Milner et al. [73] + + +
25. Mindell et al. [74]
26. Nante et al. [75] ++ + + ++
27. Niclasen et al. [76] +
28. Pitel et al. [77] + + +
29. Ratner et al. [78] + + + +
30. Regidor et al. [79] +
31. Rigby & Dorling [80] ++
32. Rosenstock et al. [81] ++ ++ ++ ++
33. Ruiz-Cantero et al. [82] ++ ++ + +
34. Staehelin et al. [83] ++ ++
35. Strand et al. [84] + + ++
36. Värnik et al. [85] ++ +
37. Vigna-Taglianti et al. [86] + ++
  1. Legend: ++ = good practice examples of sex/gender sensitivity, + = intermediate category (sex/gender aspects addressed to some extent); = neither a good practice example of sex/gender sensitivity nor intermediate category