Niedhammer I, Saurel-Cubizolles M J, Piciotti M, Bonenfant S
INSERM U88, Hôpital National de Saint-Maurice, 14 rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415 Saint-Maurice Cedex, France.
Occup Environ Med. 2000 Aug;57(8):521-7. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.8.521.
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.
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.
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.
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.
尽管在工业化国家,女性占劳动力人口的近一半,但在一般医学研究尤其是职业健康研究的出版物中,性别偏见依然存在。目的是回顾近期关于职业健康流行病学研究中如何考虑性别的出版物,并回答以下问题:男性和女性是否得到同等研究,仅包含男性、仅包含女性以及两者都包含的研究各自有哪些特点,在混合研究中作者选择了何种数据分析策略来考虑性别因素。
本综述基于1997年六种期刊上的出版物,纳入了所有报告职业健康流行病学研究的原创文章。
总共审查了348篇文章。40篇文章(11%)未指明研究人群的性别。177篇文章(51%)的研究人群是混合的。108篇(31%)的人群仅由男性组成,只有23篇(7%)仅由女性组成。即使研究人群是混合的,其中女性也比男性少。人群的性别构成与所考虑的职业风险因素以及健康结果有关。工业部门工人以及接触化学物质的情况在男性样本中更有可能被研究。死亡率以及肿瘤和心血管疾病等健康结果在男性中也更常被研究。令人惊讶的是,研究设计因人群性别不同而有显著差异,前瞻性研究、队列研究以及暴露组与非暴露组研究在男性样本中更常开展。在177项混合研究中,超过四分之一(27%)未对性别进行调查。26篇文章(15%)未考虑性别,但作者试图为这一决定辩解。46项混合研究(26%)对结果进行了性别调整,46项(26%)作者分别给出了男性和女性的结果。11项研究(6%)选择了更完整的数据分析策略,包括研究相互作用或进行调整,随后进行分层。
对职业健康流行病学近期出版物的这项综述表明,女性接受研究的频率仍低于男性,并且在许多混合研究中未对性别因素进行调查。因此,结果强调了有必要进一步研究女性中的职业危害以及性别差异。