Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria Street, 7th Floor, East Building, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada.
Centre for Health Policy and Management, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
BMC Med. 2024 Apr 5;22(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03346-7.
Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity).
Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework.
We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes.
There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex.
Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .
多项研究表明，职场中存在性别差异，需要进一步干预。本研究旨在识别和检查随机对照试验（RCT）中关于工作场所或志愿者场所性别公平干预的证据。另一个目的是确定干预措施是否考虑了性别与其他变量（包括 PROGRESS-Plus 公平变量，如种族/民族）的交叉。
采用 JBI 指南进行范围综述。从 2022 年 5 月 9 日开始，在 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Web of Science、ERIC、Index to Legal Periodicals and Books、PAIS Index、Policy Index File 和 Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database 中搜索文献，并于 2022 年 10 月 17 日进行了更新搜索。结果采用系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围综述的首选报告项目（PRISMA-ScR）、性别和公平研究（SAGER）指南、加强健康不平等分析中的交叉理论整合（SIITHIA）检查表以及患者和公众参与报告指南（GRIPP）版本 2 检查表进行报告。纳入了所有就业或志愿者部门的设置。纳入的干预措施旨在促进职场性别公平，针对：（a）个人，（b）组织，或（c）系统。任何比较都符合条件。结果测量包括任何与性别公平相关的结果，无论是衡量干预效果（如纳入研究定义）还是实施情况。数据分析为描述性的。按照 JBI 指南对范围综述的建议，仅进行了高级别的内容分析来对干预措施进行分类，并使用先前发表的框架进行了报告。
我们筛选了 8855 条引文、803 条灰色文献来源和 663 篇全文文章，最终纳入了 24 项独特的 RCT 和一份符合纳入标准的配套报告。大多数研究（91.7%）未能报告他们如何确定性别。24 项研究中有 23 项（95.8%）报告了至少一项 PROGRESS-Plus 变量：通常是性别或性别或职业。两项 RCT（8.3%）确定了非二进制性别认同。没有一项 RCT 报告性别与其他特征（如残疾、年龄等）之间的关系。我们在工作场所确定了 24 种促进性别公平的干预措施，并将其分类为以下主题之一：（i）量化性别影响；（ii）行为或系统变化；（iii）职业灵活性；（iv）增加可见性、认可度和代表性；（v）创造发展、指导和赞助的机会；（vi）财政支持。在这些干预措施中，20/24（83.3%）项对其主要结果（如提高学术生产力、提高自尊心）得出了积极的结论，这些结果是多样的。
促进职场性别公平的干预措施文献很少。虽然一些干预措施在各种结果中得出了积极的结论，但需要考虑特定背景和文化的标准化结果测量。很少有报告 PROGRESS-Plus 项目。没有充分考虑到非二进制性别认同和交叉问题。未来的研究应该提供一致和现代的性别和性定义。
Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae 。
