RESUMO
Background: Gender and biological sex are social and structural determinants of health and umbrella concepts encompassing many distinct attributes. This systematic review summarizes measures of gender and biological sex published in the biomedical literature. The goal was to identify measures that may be useful to researchers studying Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). Methods: A search of PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (ProQuest platform) databases from 2000 to 2021 identified 1454 articles, which were then screened by five independent reviewers. Measures of gender and biological sex are summarized according to theoretical commitments and psychometric properties. Results: Twenty-nine measures were identified that assessed gender-related constructs, and 4 were identified that assessed biological factors. Self-report instruments characterized aspects of gender, such as gender stereotypes, norms, and ideologies. One measure was developed with a focus on older adults (65+ years). Discussion: We offer recommendations to guide measurement of gender in AD/ADRD research, including how the use of specific existing measures may help advance AD/ADRD research. The lack of gender measures for older adults limits AD/ADRD research. New measures may be needed to address lifespan and generational differences in gender factors. Highlights: A review of articles identifies 29 measures of gender in biomedical research.Gender is captured using multidimensional, self-reported concepts.One measure was developed with a focus on older adults (65+).
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Differences between men and women are common in published research on aging and Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD). What do these differences mean? To answer this, rigorous measurement is needed. We investigated current methods for measuring sex/gender in aging and AD/ADRD cohort studies. METHODS: An online survey was sent to National Institute on Aging-funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (n = 38) and investigator-initiated cohort studies (n = 38) to assess practices around enrollment of men and women and measurement of sex and gender. RESULTS: The response rate was 65.8% (n = 50). All enrolled men and all but two investigator-initiated studies enrolled women. Most cohorts (43/50) had no documented definitions for categories of "men" or "women." Over 85% of cohorts relied solely on self-report questions to capture sex/gender data (n = 43/50). Issues with administration were also identified (n = 7). DISCUSSION: Our findings identify gaps in current approaches used to measure sex and gender in aging and AD/ADRD research. We discuss opportunities to bridge these gaps and advance measurement of sex and gender in aging and AD/ADRD research. Changes are needed to ensure inclusion and representation of sociocultural diversity in research samples, and consistency in data collection in aging and AD/ADRD research.