Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Institute of Medical Sociology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 3;16(11):e0259223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259223. eCollection 2021.
The relevance of gender as a social determinant of health and its role in the production of health inequalities is now broadly acknowledged. However, the plethora of existing approaches to capture gender, which often stem from disciplines outside of epidemiology, makes it difficult to assess their practicality and relevance for a given research purpose. We conducted a scoping review to 1) map the evidence of how gender can be operationalised in quantitative epidemiology and 2) design a tool to critically evaluate the measures identified.
We identified peer-reviewed articles in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO). Eligible sources described the quantitative operationalisation of the social dimension of gender. With the help of a newly developed checklist, we assessed their relevance from an analytical perspective (e.g. intersectionality) and their potential for implementation in epidemiology.
Gender measures principally assessed gender roles and norms, gender-based discrimination and violence, and structural gender (in)equality. Of the 344 measures included in this review, the majority lacked theoretical foundation, and tended to reinforce the binary understanding of gender through stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Only few measures allowed for an intersectional approach and a multilevel understanding of gender mechanisms. From a practical point of view, gender measures demonstrated potential for use in varied populations and contexts.
A range of gender measures are readily available for epidemiological research, addressing different levels and dimensions of gender as a social construct. With our theory-informed, practice-driven scoping review, we highlighted strengths and limitations of such measures and provided analytical tools for researchers interested in conducting intersectional, gender-sensitive analyses.
性别作为健康的社会决定因素及其在健康不平等产生中的作用,现在已得到广泛承认。然而,由于性别问题的现有方法众多,且这些方法通常来自于流行病学以外的学科,因此很难评估它们对于特定研究目的的实用性和相关性。我们进行了范围界定审查,以 1)绘制如何在定量流行病学中操作性别变量的证据图,以及 2)设计一种工具来批判性地评估所确定的措施。
我们在电子数据库(PubMed、Embase 和 PsycINFO)中确定了同行评审文章。符合条件的来源描述了性别社会维度的定量操作化。借助新开发的清单,我们从分析角度(例如交叉性)评估了它们的相关性及其在流行病学中的实施潜力。
性别措施主要评估性别角色和规范、基于性别的歧视和暴力以及结构性性别(不平等)。在本综述中纳入的 344 项措施中,大多数缺乏理论基础,并且倾向于通过女性气质和男性气质的刻板印象强化性别二元理解。只有少数措施允许采用交叉方法和对性别机制的多层次理解。从实际角度来看,性别措施在不同的人群和环境中具有潜在的应用前景。
有一系列性别措施可用于流行病学研究,涉及性别作为社会建构的不同层面和维度。通过我们基于理论、实践驱动的范围界定审查,我们突出了这些措施的优缺点,并为有兴趣进行交叉、性别敏感分析的研究人员提供了分析工具。