Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in Australian health and medical research, policy and practice

Health Research Policy and Systems volume 22, Article number: 86 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Sex and gender are inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice, leading to preventable disparities in health and wellbeing. Several global institutions, journals, and funding bodies have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting and the delivery of clinical care. However, according to recent evaluations, these policies have had limited impact on the inclusion of diverse research participants, adequate reporting of sex and gender data and reducing preventable inequities in access to, and quality provision of, healthcare. In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project aims to address sex and gender bias in health and medical research by (i) examining how sex and gender are currently considered in Australian research policy and practice; (ii) working with stakeholders to develop policy interventions; and (iii) understanding the wider impacts, including economic, of improved sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research. In this paper we describe the development of a theory of change (ToC) for the SGPMR project. The ToC evolved from a two-stage process consisting of key stakeholder interviews and a consultation event. The ToC aims to identify the pathways to impact from improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice, and highlight how key activities and policy levers can lead to improvements in clinical practice and health outcomes. In describing the development of the ToC, we present an entirely novel framework for outlining how sex and gender can be appropriately considered within the confines of health and medical research, policy and practice.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

  • Inadequate consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice contributes to inequity in the distribution of health.

  • No framework for guiding the consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice currently exists.

  • The theory of change presented in this paper presents an entirely novel and important theoretical scaffold for institutions and organizations to use when considering how to actively enhance sex and gender awareness and inclusivity in their activity.

  • Reorienting practice through informed action can contribute to improving population health and economic wellbeing by enhancing sex and gender equity.

Introduction

Sex and gender are important determinants of health but are often inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice [1,2,3]. Documented issues include exclusion or underrepresentation of cis women, trans women and men, those with intersex characteristics and non-binary populations in research participation and lack of sex and gender disaggregation and interpretation of data (see Table 1 for definitions of key concepts) [2, 4]. As health and medical research forms the evidence base that many clinical guidelines and health policies are based on, this can lead to disparities in diagnosis, treatment and health outcomes. Sex- and gender-based health disparities have been identified in many conditions, such as cardiovascular disease [5, 6], stroke [7] and pain [8], and heath areas such as screening, diagnosis [9] and reactions to pharmacological treatments [10].

Table 1 Definitions of key terminology (source: [23])
Full size table

In response to these health disparities, in recent decades several research institutions have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting [11,12,13,14,15]. New and updated policies increasingly highlight broader issues of equity and intersectionality alongside sex and gender considerations [16]. The aims and potential impacts of these policies include improved rigour, ethics and reproducibility of science, counteracting existing biases and exclusionary practices, understanding health differences and inequities, informing and improving health policy and care and advancing gender equality, diversity and inclusion. Positive initiatives towards updating university science and medical curricula [17,18,19], clinical protocols and guidelines [6, 20] and public and global health programs to explicitly incorporate sex and gender considerations have also been reported [21, 22].

Evaluations of these policies and guidelines report mixed results on health and medical research design and reporting to date [24,25,26]. For instance, an evaluation of the Canadian Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis policy found increased explicit consideration of sex and gender in grant applications [27], while other policy evaluations have found limited impact on the inclusion of women and marginalized community members in study populations and on the disaggregation and analysis of results by sex and gender [28,29,30]. A range of barriers to progress have also been reported, including limited awareness, a lack of training and resources among personnel across the medical research pipeline, and the absence of adequate accountability and monitoring mechanisms by regulators, including government agencies, funders and universities, among others [31,32,33].

In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project was established to understand the current state of play in relation to the explicit consideration of sex and gender in medical research and practice [34]. SGPMR is a philanthropically funded initiative with three primary aims: (i) to understand whether and how sex and gender are addressed in current research policy and practice in Australia; (ii) to work with stakeholders to co-develop policy interventions; and (iii) to understand the wider impacts, including economic impacts, of improving sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research [35]. Work to date has demonstrated that sex and gender are under-reported in research articles published in Australia’s top ten medical journals in 2020 [3] and that the content of academic journals dedicated to women’s health remains largely focussed on reproductive health topics, with few articles targeting the major causes of morbidity and mortality in women [36].

Common to each of these disparate initiatives is an implied shared understanding in the notion that explicit consideration of sex and gender in research design, policy and operations leads to better data and evidence-based practice, which in turn leads to better health outcomes. As has been previously argued [37], a clearly articulated explicit framework outlining the causal pathways by which better data and gender-sensitive practice would lead to better health would ensure that the opportunity for misunderstanding is minimized and enhance the coordination of efforts to achieve common goals and the ability to create and evaluate their impact enhanced. A Theory of Change (ToC), defined as “an explicit process of thinking through and documenting how a program or intervention is supposed to work, why it will work, who it will benefit and the conditions required for success”, is an increasingly common means in which to articulate a shared vision and map logical pathways to impact towards addressing a problem or issue [38]. This methodology is increasingly used in public health and evaluation frameworks to articulate how an intervention can achieve long-term impact by identifying and depicting causal pathways from activities to outputs and outcomes and the key mechanisms, barriers, and facilitators underpinning these causal pathways [39,40,41,42]. Although ToCs are typically developed for discrete projects or interventions, they have been used to promote shared ownership and understanding among stakeholders for broader initiatives, such as strengthening sector-wide response to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Papua New Guinea [43] and multi-sector urban planning initiatives [44].

In this paper, we outline the development of a ToC to identify the pathways through which improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice could impact social and economic health outcomes. The objectives of this work are twofold: (1) to fill an important knowledge-implementation gap in the literature by explicitly documenting the problem, the desired impact and how engaging in certain activities can contribute towards achievement of positive change across the evidence, policy and practice pipeline; and (2) to situate the activities of the aforementioned SGPMR project in this wider context to guide future project activities aimed at creating impact in the Australian health and medical research sector.

Methods

Study design

This study followed best practice guidelines for developing a ToC, involving a wide range of stakeholders and end-users, ensuring rigorous evidence-based discussions through participatory research methods and engaging in an iterative process of refinement [45, 46]. These recommendations are reflected by the iterative six-step process followed in this study: (1) initial mapping of key concepts and considerations; (2) stakeholder interviews; (3) draft ToC development; (4) stakeholder consultation workshop; (5) revised ToC development; and (6) stakeholder review. Table 2 outlines the goals and methods of each of the steps. For transparency, this study is reported against the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (Supplementary file 1) and the Checklist for reporting ToC in Public Health Interventions (Supplementary file 2) [45].

Table 2 Outline of the six steps used to develop the theory of change map
Full size table

Data collection

Initial mapping

A horizon scanning exercise was undertaken to identify literature of importance to this project by using PubMed and Google Scholar searches with different combinations of the key words “sex”, “gender”, “health” “medical” “research” “policy” “framework” “logic” and “theory of change”. Titles and abstracts were screened and full papers reviewed for literature identified as potentially relevant. No evidence was identified that directly addressed the development of a framework for explicit consideration of sex and gender in medical research, policy and practice. Literature on the development and use of a ToC was reviewed to determine the most appropriate structural framework for the purposes of this ToC. The approach chosen draws upon programmatic theory described as “deal[ing] with the mechanisms that intervene between the delivery of a program service and the occurrence of outcomes of interest” [29]. This approach requires that all activities and their intended outputs, outcomes and impacts are identified and then mapped to a ToC structural framework. Table 3 defines each component of the ToC structural framework used in this exercise. Barriers and facilitators to reaching the intended outcomes and impacts were also considered.

Table 3 Elements of the theory of change structural framework
Full size table

Study participants

Participation in the study was restricted to members of the SGPMR project [34]. There are 24 SGPMR project members in total: 8 principal investigators (PI) and an advisory group of 16 members. Members represent government, cisgender, trans, intersex, non-binary and indigenous community groups, as well as multidisciplinary academics with expertise in health and medicine, gender, human rights, policy, clinical care, regulation and community engagement.

Semi-structured interviews

All 24 individuals associated with the SGPMR project were invited via email to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted by one of three members of the core ToC research team (L.D., L.H., T.G.) who all have experience in qualitative research. Semi-structured interviews of 40–60 min were conducted, either online, via Zoom or in person. The predetermined interview guide included a brief introduction to ToC methodology and questions were organized around the structural framework to obtain views on the key problems, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts that related to the SGPMR project and sex and gender in the health and medical research sector (Supplementary file 3). Questions were primarily framed in relation to the SGPMR project, thereby concerning the Australian context.

Interviews were audio recorded, with the written consent of participants. The research team reviewed the audio transcripts produced by the Zoom transcribe function alongside the audio recordings to develop an accurate transcript for each interview. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 12. Interview responses were mapped deductively to the elements of the structural framework and analysed inductively to identify common themes across interviews. Codes were discussed between the core ToC research team iteratively and the final list of codes was used to develop the draft ToC. Codes addressing similar themes were combined where possible.

Consultation workshop

All 24 members of the SGPMR project, regardless of whether they participated in an interview, were invited to provide further input on the draft ToC by participating in a 2-h online workshop on 23 September 2022. The draft ToC was presented by the lead facilitator (L.D.) and each element was presented for discussion and feedback amongst the group. Content, language and structure of the draft were all reviewed, with further explanation by the facilitators and input from stakeholders. The discussion was audio-recorded with the consent of participants and one facilitator took extensive notes (T.G.), which were used by the research team to make amendments to the draft.

Ethics

This study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethical Approval Panel (HREAP) at the University of New South Wales (HC220443). All participants provided written consent to participate in this study.

Results

Participation

A total of 15 individuals (4 PI members, 11 advisory group members), participated in semi-structured interviews, and 7 individuals (4 PI members, 3 advisory group members) participated in the 2-h online workshop. Participants represented expertise in clinical research, social sciences, academic, non-government community-based organizations and government. The most common reason for declining participation was unavailability. A total of 12 individuals (5 PI members and 7 advisory group members) provided peer review of the draft ToC schematic. In total, 19 out of 24 (79.2%) individuals associated with the SGPMR project provided some input into the ToC.

Theory of change

The ToC is shown in Fig. 1 (see Supplementary File 4 for a tabulated version). Results are structured according to the elements of the ToC (problem statement, required activities, outputs and outcomes, impact). Boxes in the ToC are referred to in the results below numbered from left to right across the diagram for each element of the framework.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in health and medical research, policy and practice

Full size image

Problems

Five key problems regarding the current consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice were identified for inclusion in the ToC: (1) lack of awareness of existing sex and gender biases and how those intersect with other biases in health and medical research, policy and practice; (2) Inadequate and biased incorporation of sex and gender into health and medical research; (3) sex and gender-based exclusion from meaningful engagement and participation in health and medical research; (4) lack of evidence-based interventions to address sex and gender biases in research, policy and practice; and (5) inequitable health outcomes between different populations.

Interviewees identified various forms of bias in research against different groups on the basis of sex and gender, which lead to science that is not rigorous or representative. Several potential reasons were proposed for inadequate consideration of sex and gender in research including poor societal understanding of sex and gender, particularly the predominance of a binary concept of sex and gender, inadequate data collection, lack of inclusion and analysis by sex and gender, too strong a focus on biological sex and a lack of consideration of intersectional factors, including race, social, economic and other factors. Other issues included the exclusion of marginalized communities from participating in research, a lack of adequate community consultation and input into research projects, which can lead to the design and funding of unethical research. Stakeholders discussed inequitable access to healthcare, which contributes to poorer health outcomes, particularly for women, transgender and gender-diverse people and people with intersex variations, and associated economic losses.

Activities

A total of 12 activities with potential to address the problems raised above emerged from participants’ responses. As a key starting point, respondents emphasized the need for improved understanding of the terms sex and gender, both within the health and medical research sector and societally. Respondents stressed that the complexity of these concepts and their evolving nature required a suitable conceptual framework that could be used to guide other activities. Accounting for intersectionality was also highlighted in the workshop as a vital component for any such framework to consider.

These themes are reflected in the ToC through the inclusion of activities that relate to building knowledge and awareness, education, training and advocacy:

  1. (1)

    Sector-wide discussion on conceptions of sex and gender and their relationship to intersectional factors;

  2. (2)

    Development and delivery of education and training on sex and gender concepts, their relevance and application to health research and translation;

  3. (3)

    Advocacy and awareness building around current issues and solutions;

  4. (4)

    Mapping current knowledge, policy and practice in relation to sex and gender.

    Two activities focussed on the need for meaningful consultation and the building of networks and partnerships to share knowledge and expertise and facilitate change that appropriately accounts for the needs of diverse communities:

  5. (5)

    Diverse community and stakeholder involvement and engagement in evidence generation, translation, implementation and evaluation;

  6. (6)

    Developing diverse and multidisciplinary networks and communities of practice.

    Several activities focussed on changing research practice and the development of policies, guidelines and standards to assist this change:

  7. (7)

    Policy development and implementation throughout the health and medical research sector;

  8. (8)

    Production or implementation of standards for consideration of sex and gender in research design;

  9. (9)

    Collection of accurate and inclusive sex- and gender-related and disaggregated data. Many stakeholders suggested that the Australian Bureau of Statistics Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables [47] is a locally relevant example of such a standard that can be further implemented and used to guide data collection.

    Expanding beyond health and medical research, two activities focussed on supporting translation of research evidence into practice:

  10. (10)

    Production of standards for consideration of sex and gender in design and regulation of medical products such as drugs and devices.

  11. (11)

    Translation of evidence into clinical guidelines and health policy that explicitly considers different populations.

    The last activity underpins the implementation pillar and applies to all previous activities:

  12. (12)

    Monitoring, evaluation, governance and regulation of health and medical research and translation.

    Participants repeatedly addressed the need for monitoring and evaluating the impact of interventions such as education and training, and changes to health and medical research, policy and practice. Participants emphasized the importance of a consistent process of review and adaptation over time, based on monitoring and evaluation, and taking account of the dynamic nature of sex- and gender-based research, concepts and terminology. It was also highlighted that this process should go beyond tokenistic metrics to understand and evaluate how institutional change occurs.

Outputs

A total of 11 outputs were identified as emerging from the activities. These were:

  1. (1)

    Shared language for discussing sex, gender and intersectional factors;

  2. (2)

    Resources, training, curricula and advocacy material;

  3. (3)

    Educated, skilled and aware health research, delivery, policy and governance workforce;

  4. (4)

    Baseline reporting on current incorporation of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice;

  5. (5)

    Central hub for networking, engagement and resources.

  6. (6)

    New or updated policies and guidelines for sex and gender incorporation into health research and practice across the sector;

  7. (7)

    Comprehensive and inclusive data and evidence on sex, gender and health;

  8. (8)

    Sex- and gender-informed clinical guidelines, standards, regulations, public policies and strategies;

  9. (9)

    Reporting on changes in research practice;

  10. (10)

    Reporting on health indicators across sex and gender domains; and

  11. (11)

    Established feedback mechanisms for continuous monitoring, evaluation and improvement of health research, policy and practice.

Outcomes

Outcomes reflected the priority activities raised by participants. They strongly felt that the identified activities would lead to improvements in research practice, including (1) improved integration of sex and gender in research design; (2) meaningful, accurate and inclusive data collection and reporting; (3) greater inclusion and participation in health and medical research; and (4) presence, implementation and monitoring of sex and gender research policies in the sector.

Other outcomes reflected the impacts of training, educational and advocacy activities: (5) recognition and application of sex and gender as nuanced, evolving concepts that intersect with other factors that impact health; (6) multidisciplinary sex and gender networks and communities of practice; (7) improved skills, knowledge and understanding of importance of sex and gender in health/medical research, policy and practice; and (8) increased awareness and use of best practice standards and guidelines.

Respondents also identified outcomes that may result from the translation of policies into more appropriate healthcare services and treatment: (9) efficient, inclusive and fit for purpose health interventions and services. This encompassed a variety of possible outcomes raised by stakeholders, including clinicians being able to provide inclusive and appropriate care, better and more cost-effective healthcare delivery, more targeted support for particular populations and more robust medical products. Respondents also felt that the existence of adequate monitoring and evaluation processes would result in an outcome whereby the (10) health sector (is) held accountable for ongoing action to address gender disparities in health outcomes.

Impacts

Four impacts were identified which fed into the overarching impact of: enhanced health and wellbeing for everyone. Typically, sex and gender research is narrowly viewed as only relevant to women and other marginalized communities, yet the participants emphasized that identifying and evaluating health data benefits all population groups. This was reinforced by the four sub-impacts that were identified: (1) better-quality, nuanced and new health data and information; (2) safe, meaningful and representative participation and experience of diverse groups in health research, policy, practice and care; (3) health and medical sector-wide commitment to reform towards fairer, more inclusive and representative policy and practice; and (4) better and more equitable health and economic outcomes for all.

Barriers and facilitators

Key barriers and facilitators to change were also identified by respondents. These were applicable across the entire ToC map and not just to the achievement of specific outputs, outcomes or impacts.

Two barriers focussed on the influence of entrenched systems and beliefs, including difficulty in changing attitudes and status quo and the influence of discrimination and stigma. Practical barriers included the need or perception of need for more funding, time and resources to meet practical and methodological challenges. Another barrier to change was concern regarding ethics or liability when broadening research inclusivity, particularly when including those who are pregnant or lactating in clinical trials.

Facilitators included societal changes in culture and values that would increase receptivity to change. Another facilitator was leadership, with leadership from organizations and individual champions as well as the equitable gender representation in positions of power across the sector being facilitators for change. Organizations across the sector can also facilitate change through the provision of funding, operational support and expertise and the implementation of accountability measures and mandates.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first theory of change (ToC) to explicitly outline a common understanding of the sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in health and medical research, policy and practice and outline clear actions and pathways to impact towards enhanced health and wellbeing for all. This work therefore fills an important knowledge-implementation gap in the literature by demonstrating how changes in research policy and practice may create wider impact and the explicit assumptions underlying the guiding future activities and discussion in the field. We identify a range of required actions across evidence generation, translation and implementation that contextualizes the work that many in the sector are already doing, situates the activities of the SGPMR project in this wider context and has the potential to inform the development of future activities. Further, the overarching impact of enhanced health and wellbeing for all is a unifying goal for people working across these sectors, and thus this ToC can be used to reinforce the need to address sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion to achieve this impact.

In providing a scaffold for how positive change might occur across medical research, policy and practice through clearly articulated pathways to impact, this ToC also provides important theoretical underpinning to published estimates of macro-level return on investment in gender inclusive research and practice. For example, the donor Women’s Health Access Matters (WHAM) reported that investment of USD$ 300 million in women’s health research across three diseases could result in returns to the economy in excess of USD$ 13 billion by way of improvement in population health and economic productivity [48]. Assumptions made in the WHAM report regarding how increased investment in research leads to improved health are afforded a more nuanced understanding when considered alongside the pathways to impact articulated in this ToC.

Activities articulated by study participants and represented in the ToC align well with the limited literature that describes initiatives already underway that consider and address disparity in scientific and medical practice. For example, White et al. summarize lessons learnt from funding agencies in developing policies for sex and gender consideration in medical research and identify awareness building, education and collaboration between institutions and continual monitoring and evaluation as necessary to facilitate impact [25]. Initiatives such as Gendered Innovations and Global Health 50/50 are also actively engaged in building awareness of the need for and value in gender diverse participation in health and medical research and practice and provide guidance to different types of organizations to enhance their practice in this respect whilst monitoring progress against gender inclusion within the global health sector [21, 49].

For those who are already working on specific activities such as developing or updating policies and guidelines to impact research practice [16, 50, 51], this ToC can help contextualize this change, inform design and encourage organizations to consider what parallel activities might be needed, such as education and training, consultation with key stakeholders and clarification of concepts across the sector. The ToC demonstrates the importance to those working to address sex and gender issues in evidence, translation and implementation of the need to coordinate their efforts and ensure monitoring and evaluation is communicated to inform practice throughout the pipeline.

Implications for the SGPMR project

The development of this ToC has various implications for the SGPMR project. First, while the ToC spans far beyond than the scope of the project, it supports project affiliates to identify activities to which they can contribute and situate their efforts in a wider change context. Further, as engaging with stakeholders across the health and medical research sector is an activity of the project, this ToC can be used as an advocacy tool to demonstrate the need for change and the role of different organizations in contributing to that change [34, 35].

Second, this work also served as a useful activity to reach consensus on the key issues to be addressed and the desired impact of the project. It also facilitated discussion regarding the limitations of this project in achieving long-term impact on health outcomes due to the concentration of activities at the evidence end of the pipeline. Further, this process highlighted the diverse perspectives and priorities of different project stakeholders, related to issues faced by certain populations (namely, cis women, transgender women, gender-diverse people and people with intersex variations), which actions and activities they deemed most important and the areas of the sector they were most familiar with or interested in influencing. This process was beneficial in capturing those different perspectives and working to account for and align the goals of all stakeholders.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this work was that it was developed in consultation with stakeholders from various academic and professional backgrounds alongside representatives of communities marginalized because of their sex and gender status. These perspectives have been incorporated in the ToC, enabling an expansive view of sex and gender biases in the sectors impacting diverse groups in different ways and conceptualize how we can create change for the benefit of all.

The development of this ToC has some key limitations. First, as this study was conducted from a sector-wide perspective, it is not centred around a specific intervention and does not trace linear pathways of impact, highlight measurable pre-conditions for success or identify parties responsible for certain actions. Rather, it is a broad conceptual model, reflecting the complexity of the problems and potential solutions, and mapping an array of activities, outputs and potential outcomes. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, this is the first such tool for this sector and therefore has potential to be used across the sector to advance sex- and gender-based policy design, evaluation and impact [52]. Second, while this ToC covers a broad range of issues, other connected problems, such as the lack of gender equity in the health and medical research, policy and practice workforce were considered out of scope, though others have clearly linked the two issues [21]. Lastly, we only consulted internal project affiliates for an Australia-based project, and participants were mostly academics, with a small number of end-users working in policy- and community-based organizations. The development of the ToC was based primarily on this consultation, without the benefit of a large literature base, due to the lack of previous research about the efficacy of interventions in this field.

Conclusions

This paper describes the development of a theory of change (ToC) that maps clear pathways to impact for improving the consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice. This ToC is the first of its kind in the field of health and medical research and provides an important theoretical scaffold for institutions and organizations to consider when considering how to actively enhance sex and gender awareness, inclusivity and informed action to contribute to enhancing population health and economic wellbeing.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed under study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Mauvais-Jarvis F, Bairey Merz N, Barnes PJ, Brinton RD, Carrero JJ, DeMeo DL, et al. Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine. Lancet. 2020;396(10250):565–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Merriman R, Galizia I, Tanaka S, Sheffel A, Buse K, Hawkes S. The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(5): e005672.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hallam L, Vassallo A, Hallam C, Thompson K, Shanthosh J, Chappell L, et al. Sex and gender reporting in Australian health and medical research publications. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2023;47(1): 100005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geller SE, Koch AR, Roesch P, Filut A, Hallgren E, Carnes M. The more things change, the more they stay the same: a study to evaluate compliance with inclusion and assessment of women and minorities in randomized controlled trials. Acad Med. 2018;93(4):630–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gauci S, Cartledge S, Redfern J, Gallagher R, Huxley R, Lee CMY, et al. Biology, bias, or both? The contribution of sex and gender to the disparity in cardiovascular outcomes between women and men. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2022;24(9):701–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Huded CP, Johnson M, Kravitz K, Menon V, Abdallah M, Gullett TC, et al. 4-Step protocol for disparities in STEMI care and outcomes in women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(19):2122–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carcel C, Woodward M, Wang X, Bushnell C, Sandset EC. Sex matters in stroke: a review of recent evidence on the differences between women and men. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2020;59: 100870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mogil JS, Chanda ML. The case for the inclusion of female subjects in basic science studies of pain. Pain. 2005;117(1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang X, Carcel C, Hsu B, Shajahan S, Miller M, Peters S, et al. Differences in the pre-hospital management of women and men with stroke by emergency medical services in New South Wales. Med J Aust. 2022;217(3):143–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Farkouh A, Riedl T, Gottardi R, Czejka M, Kautzky-Willer A. Sex-related differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of frequently prescribed drugs: a review of the literature. Adv Ther. 2020;37(2):644–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) at CIHR: Government of Canada; 2020. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50968.html. Accessed May 2021.

  12. European Commission. Gender equality in research and innovation: European Commission; 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-citizens-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en#gender-equality-plans-as-an-eligibility-criterion-in-horizon-europe. Accessed 3 Jun 2021.

  13. Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. National Institutes of Health. NIH guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. NIH Guide; 1994.

  15. Office of Research on Women’s Health. Consideration of sex as a biological variable in NIH-funded Research. In: Health NIo, editor. 2016.

  16. Health Canada. Health portfolio sex- and gender-based analysis plus policy: advancing equity, diversity and inclusion Government of Canada; 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/heath-portfolio-sex-gender-based-analysis-policy.html. Accessed 22 Oct 2022

  17. Ludwig S, Oertelt-Prigione S, Kurmeyer C, Gross M, Grüters-Kieslich A, Regitz-Zagrosek V, et al. A successful strategy to integrate sex and gender medicine into a newly developed medical curriculum. J Womens Health. 2015;24(12):996–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mercer-Mapstone L, Bajan S, Banas K, Morphett A, McGrath K. Breaking the binary: conceptions of sex and gender in undergraduate science. Teach Learn Inquiry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Muntinga ME, Krajenbrink VQE, Peerdeman SM, Croiset G, Verdonk P. Toward diversity-responsive medical education: taking an intersectionality-based approach to a curriculum evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21(3):541–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Caughey AB, Krist AH, Wolff TA, Barry MJ, Henderson JT, Owens DK, et al. USPSTF to approach addressing sex and gender when making recommendations for clinical preventive services. JAMA. 2021;326(19):1953–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Global Health 50/50. Gender Equality: flying blind in a time of crisis, The Global Health 50/50 Report 2021. London, UK; 2021.

  22. Oertelt-Prigione S, Dalibert L, Verdonk P, Stutz EZ, Klinge I. Implementation strategies for gender-sensitive public health practice: a European Workshop. J Womens Health. 2017;26(11):1255–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sex and Gender in Health and Medical Research Australia Group. Project Glossary Australia. 2021. https://www.sexandgenderhealthpolicy.org.au/glossary/. Accessed Dec 2022.

  24. Woitowich NC, Woodruff TK. Implementation of the NIH sex-inclusion policy: attitudes and opinions of study section members. J Womens Health. 2019;28(1):9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. White J, Tannenbaum C, Klinge I, Schiebinger L, Clayton J. The integration of sex and gender considerations into biomedical research: lessons from international funding agencies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(10):3034–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson J, Sharman Z, Vissandjée B, Stewart DE. Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6): e99900.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Haverfield J, Tannenbaum C. A 10-year longitudinal evaluation of science policy interventions to promote sex and gender in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Heidari S, Palmer-Ross A, Goodman T. A systematic review of the sex and gender reporting in COVID-19 clinical trials. Vaccines. 2021;9(11):1322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Geller SE, Adams MG, Carnes M. Adherence to federal guidelines for reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials. J Womens Health. 2006;15(10):1123–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Geller SE, Koch A, Pellettieri B, Carnes M. Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress? J Womens Health. 2011;20(3):315–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peters SAE, Babor TF, Norton RN, Clayton JA, Ovseiko PV, Tannenbaum C, et al. Fifth anniversary of the Sex And Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines: taking stock and looking ahead. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(11): e007853.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Merone L, Tsey K, Russell D, Nagle C. Sex inequalities in medical research: a systematic scoping review of the literature. Women’s Health Rep. 2022;3(1):49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8(1):14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Sex and Gender in Health and Medical Research Australia Group. Sex and Gender Policies in Health and Medical Research Sydney: Australian Human Rights Institute; 2021. www.sexandgenderhealthpolicy.org.au. Accessed Nov 2021.

  35. The Sex and Gender Sensitive Research Call to Action Group. Sex and gender in health research: updating policy to reflect evidence. Med J Austr. 2020;212(2):57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hallam L, Vassallo A, Pinho-Gomes A-C, Carcel C, Woodward M. Does journal content in the field of women’s health represent women’s burden of disease? A review of publications in 2010 and 2020. J Womens Health. 2022;31(5):611–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Greaves L, Ritz SA. Sex, gender and health: mapping the landscape of research and policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(5):2563.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Weiss CH. Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Dir Eval. 1997;1997(76):41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Isabel V. Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. London: UK Department of International Development; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maini R, Mounier-Jack S, Borghi J. How to and how not to develop a theory of change to evaluate a complex intervention: reflections on an experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(1): e000617.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kathryn S, Lynsay M, Sharon Anne S, Peter C, Janis B, Jane MB, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374: n2061.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Department of Foreign Affairs and; Trade Australian Government. Design and monitoring, evaluation and learning standards. Canberra: DFAT; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  43. AusAID. AusAID’s mulitsectoral contribution to the national response in Papua New Guinea; Annex 10: Theory of Change Canberra: AusAID; 2010.

  44. Weitzman BC, Mijanovich T, Silver D, Brecher C. Finding the impact in a messy intervention: using an integrated design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. Am J Eval. 2009;30(4):495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Breuer E, Lee L, De Silva M, Lund C. Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Stein D, Valters C. Understanding theory of change in international development. The Asia Foundation; London School of Economics and Political Science 2012.

  47. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables ABS Website: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/standard-sex-gender-variations-sex-characteristics-and-sexual-orientation-variables/2020. Accessed Jun 2021.

  48. Baird MA, Zaber AZ, Chen A, Dick AW, Bird CE, Waymouth M, et al. The case to fund women’s health research: an economic and societal impact analysis. Santa Monica: RAND; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Schiebinger L, Klinge, I, Sánchez de Madariaga, I, Paik, HY., Schraudner, M, and Stefanick, M. Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering and Environment Stanford: Stanford University; 2011–2021. https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu. Accessed Jun 2021.

  50. Hunt L, Nielsen MW, Schiebinger L. A framework for sex, gender, and diversity analysis in research. Science. 2022;377(6614):1492–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. AAMRI gender equity diversity and inclusion strategy and action plan. Melbourne: AAMRI; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  52. LaFond A, Cherney M. A theory of change for guiding the integration of human-centered design into global health programming. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021;9(Suppl 2):S209–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Theory of Change figure was designed with help from Deborah Bordeos.

Funding

All authors’ work on this study was funded from an anonymous philanthropic grant. The funder had no role in the design, execution, analysis or write-up of this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Thomas Gadsden and Laura Hallam contributed equally and hold joint first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Thomas Gadsden, Laura Hallam, Cheryl Carcel, Robyn Norton, Mark Woodward & Laura E. Downey

  2. Australian Human Rights Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Laura Hallam

  3. The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Robyn Norton, Mark Woodward & Laura E. Downey

  4. The Human Rights Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Louise Chappell

Authors
  1. Thomas Gadsden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Hallam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheryl Carcel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robyn Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Louise Chappell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laura E. Downey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.H., T.G., C.C., M.W., R.N. and L.D. conceptualized the study design. L.H., T.G. and L.D. collected and analysed all data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. C.C., R.N., M.W. and L.C. reviewed the draft manuscript and provided scientific and editorial insights to strengthening the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura E. Downey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study received ethical approval from the University of New South Wales (HC220443). All participants provided written consent to participate in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gadsden, T., Hallam, L., Carcel, C. et al. Theory of change for addressing sex and gender bias, invisibility and exclusion in Australian health and medical research, policy and practice. Health Res Policy Sys 22, 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01173-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01173-z

Keywords

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

Contact us