Dataset Information

Civil society stakeholders' participation in national health reporting on sex/gender issues: a study protocol for an intersectionality-informed and sex/gender-sensitive approach to focus group research.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Health reporting is one of the foundations on which public health interventions and policies as well as prevention measures are developed. However, it faces the challenge of adequately reflecting social and sex/gender-related heterogeneity. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research-funded joint project, AdvanceGender, aims to develop guidelines for sex/gender-sensitive and intersectional approach to population-based studies and health reporting. In its subproject, AdvanceHealthReport, four focus groups will be conducted to provide essential information on possible ways of participation of civil society stakeholders and on communication of health information for the further development of the guidelines (research period: from January 2019 to March 2020). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The civil society stakeholders provide valuable information which health topics are relevant in regard to specific populations and how health information should be communicated in a non-stigmatising way. The groups will also discuss how civil society stakeholders should participate in health reporting. The starting point for intersections will be sex/gender. The intersection of sex/gender and migration and sex/gender and sexual orientation is particularly taken into account. The focus groups will be recorded, transcribed, anonymised and then analysed according to the qualitative content analysis. RESULTS:The results will show the pathways as well as benefits and possible limitations of civil society stakeholder involvement in national health reporting and will contribute in developing guidelines for sex/gender-sensitive and intersectional health reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results of the focus groups will be published in scientific journals and presented at various national and international conferences. Furthermore, the findings will be incorporated into guidelines for research and health reporting. The study was approved by the Ethics Commission of Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (AZ: E-01-20180529).

SUBMITTER: Poge K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045200 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Civil society stakeholders' participation in national health reporting on sex/gender issues: a study protocol for an intersectionality-informed and sex/gender-sensitive approach to focus group research.

Pöge Kathleen K Strasser Sarah Mirabella SM Saß Anke-Christine AC Rommel Alexander A

BMJ open 20200113 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Health reporting is one of the foundations on which public health interventions and policies as well as prevention measures are developed. However, it faces the challenge of adequately reflecting social and sex/gender-related heterogeneity. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research-funded joint project, AdvanceGender, aims to develop guidelines for sex/gender-sensitive and intersectional approach to population-based studies and health reporting. In its subproject ...[more]

PMID: 31937654

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of a theoretical intersectionality framework into quantitative data analyses is gaining increasing interest in health research. The substantive foundation of intersectionality was established in the U.S., based on the claim of black feminists to broaden the scope of contemporary gender studies by considering the intersection between sex/gender and race/ethnicity more firmly. The aim of our scoping review with particular emphasis on sex/gender was to assess how intersectionality-informed studies in epidemiological research considered different social dimensions in their multivariable and multivariate analyses.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a literature review in PubMed. Three distinct health-related fields were brought into focus: diabetes representing a frequent chronic disease, smoking as a wide-spread behavioural health determinant and physical activity as a central target for health promotion. Initially, we compared which and how different social dimensions were accounted for and how inter-categorical and intersectionality-informed analyses were conducted. Further, we assessed sex/gender sensitivity by comparing operationalisation of sex/gender, how sex/gender theories were used and which central theoretical sex/gender concepts were referred to when aiming at explanation of (intersectional) sex/gender differences.ResultsOur results suggest, that intersectionality-based analyses within the three selected health-related fields are mainly conducted in the U.S. and focused on the intersection between sex/gender and race/ethnicity by using them jointly as subgrouping variables and as parts of interaction terms in regression analyses. Income and education as proxies for social class as well as age are mainly used for adjustment in quantitative analyses. Other approaches for calculating interactions (i.a. synergy-index, CART-analysis) are an exception. Even though sex/gender was considered in every included study and Gender was the most frequent theoretical sex/gender concept referred to when theoretically explaining sex/gender differences, it was exclusively operationalised as binary and solution-linked sex/gender variables were hardly considered in quantitative analyses.ConclusionThe systematic integration of solution-linked variables indicating modifiable aspects of sex/gender-related living conditions and disadvantages could improve sex/gender sensitivity as part of intersectionality-based quantitative data analysis in health research.

Project description:IntroductionFew studies have described the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance in India from the perspective of those involved in the design and implementation of vaccine campaigns-such as government officials and civil society stakeholders-a prerequisite to developing approaches to address this barrier to high immunization coverage and further child health improvements.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study to understand government officials and civil society stakeholders' perceptions of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in India. We conducted in-depth phone interviews using a structured guide of open-ended questions with 21 participants from international and national non-governmental organizations, professional associations, and universities, and state and national government-six national-level stakeholders in New Delhi, six state-level stakeholders in Uttar Pradesh, six in Kerala, and three in Gujarat-from July 2020 to October 2020. We analyzed data through a multi-stage process following Grounded Theory. We present findings on individual-level, contextual, and vaccine/vaccination program-specific factors influencing vaccine hesitancy.ResultsWe identified multiple drivers and complex ways they influence vaccine beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors from the perspective of government officials and civil society stakeholders involved in vaccine campaigns. Important individual-level influences were low awareness of the benefits of vaccination, safety concerns, especially related to mild adverse events following immunization, and mistrust in government and health service quality. Contextual-level factors included communications, the media environment, and social media, which serves as a major conduit of misinformation and driver of hesitancy, as well as sociodemographic factors-specific drivers varied widely by income, education, urban/rural setting, and across religious and cultural groups. Among vaccine/vaccination-level issues, vaccine program design and delivery and the role of health care professionals emerged as the strongest determinants of hesitancy.ConclusionsDrivers of vaccine hesitancy in India, as elsewhere, vary widely by local context; successful interventions should address individual, contextual, and vaccine-specific factors. While previous studies focused on individual-level factors, our study demonstrates the equal importance of contextual and vaccine-specific influences, especially the communication and media environment, influential leaders, sociodemographic factors, and frontline health workers.

Project description:BackgroundThe concept of "intersectionality" is increasingly employed within public health arenas, particularly in North America, and is often heralded as offering great potential to advance health inequalities research and action. Given persistently poor progress towards tackling health inequalities, and recent calls to reframe this agenda in the United Kingdom and Europe, the possible contribution of intersectionality deserves attention. Yet, no existing research has examined professional stakeholder understandings and perspectives on applying intersectionality to this field.MethodsIn this paper we seek to address that gap, drawing upon a consultation survey and face-to-face workshop (n = 23) undertaken in the United Kingdom. The survey included both researchers (n = 53) and policy and practice professionals (n = 20) with varied roles and levels of engagement in research and evaluation. Topics included familiarity with the term and concept "intersectionality", relevance to health inequalities work, and issues shaping its uptake. Respondents were also asked to comment on two specific policy suggestions: intersectionally targeting and tailoring interventions, and evaluating the intersectional effects of policies. The workshop aims were to share examples of applying intersectionality within health inequalities research and practice; understand the views of research and practice colleagues on potential contributions and challenges; and identify potential ways to promote intersectional approaches.ResultsFindings indicated a generally positive response to the concept and a cautiously optimistic assessment that intersectional approaches could be valuable. However, opinions were mixed and various challenges were raised, especially around whether intersectionality research is necessarily critical and transformative and, accordingly, how it should be operationalized methodologically. Nonetheless, there was general agreement that intersectionality is concerned with diverse inequalities and the systems of power that shape them.ConclusionsWe position intersectionality within the wider context of health inequalities policy and practice, suggesting potential ways forward for the approach in the context of the United Kingdom. The views of policy and practice professionals suggest that intersectionality has far to travel to help counter individualistic narratives and to encourage an approach that is sensitive to subgroup inequalities and the processes that generate them. Examples of promising practice, albeit mostly in North America, suggest that it is possible for intersectionality to gain traction.

Project description:Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen's Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting.

Dataset Information

Civil society stakeholders' participation in national health reporting on sex/gender issues: a study protocol for an intersectionality-informed and sex/gender-sensitive approach to focus group research.

Publications

Civil society stakeholders' participation in national health reporting on sex/gender issues: a study protocol for an intersectionality-informed and sex/gender-sensitive approach to focus group research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets