[Integration of sex/gender into environmental health research. Results of the interdisciplinary research network Sex/Gender-Environment-Health (GeUmGe-NET)]. / Integration von Geschlecht in die Forschung zu umweltbezogener Gesundheit. Ergebnisse des interdisziplinären Forschungsnetzwerks Geschlecht ­ Umwelt ­ Gesundheit (GeUmGe-NET).

The comprehensive consideration of sex/gender in health research is essential to increase relevance and validity of research results. Contrary to other areas of health research, there is no systematic summary of the current state of research on the significance of sex/gender in environmental health. Within the interdisciplinary research network Sex/Gender-Environment-Health (GeUmGe-NET) the current state of integration of sex/gender aspects or, respectively, gender theoretical concepts into research was systematically assessed within selected topics of the research areas environmental toxicology, environmental medicine, environmental epidemiology and public health research on environment and health. Knowledge gaps and research needs were identified in all research areas. Furthermore, the potential for methodological advancements by using gender theoretical concepts was depicted. A dialogue between biomedical research, public health research, and gender studies was started with the research network GeUmGe-NET. This dialogue has to be continued particularly regarding a common testing of methodological innovations in data collection and data analysis. Insights of this interdisciplinary research are relevant for practice areas such as environmental health protection, health promotion, environmental justice, and environmental health monitoring.

Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Modelling of HPV Vaccines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Practice Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a number of challenges in implementing cervical cancer prevention programmes that do not apply in high-income countries. OBJECTIVE: This review assessed how context-specific challenges of implementing cervical cancer prevention strategies in LMICs were accounted for in existing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, Web of Science, and the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health (CEA) Registry were searched for studies published from 2006 to 2015. A descriptive, narrative, and interpretative synthesis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies included in the review, the majority acknowledged cost per vaccinated girl (CVG) (26 studies) and vaccine coverage rate (21 studies) as particular challenges for LMICs, while nine studies identified screening coverage rate as a challenge. Most of the studies estimated CVG as a composite of different cost items. However, the basis for the items within this composite cost was unclear. The majority used an assumption rather than an observed rate to represent screening and vaccination coverage rates. CVG, vaccine coverage and screening coverage were shown by some studies through sensitivity analyses to reverse the conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness, thereby significantly affecting policy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: While many studies recognized aspects of the particular challenges of HPV vaccination in LMICs, greater efforts need to be made in adapting models to account for these challenges. These include adapting costings of HPV vaccine delivery from other countries, learning from the outcomes of cervical cancer screening programmes in the same geographical region, and taking into account the country's previous experience with other vaccination programmes.

Are older adults missing from low back pain clinical trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence to suggest that older adults are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials of health interventions. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the age-related inclusion criteria distribution of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low back pain (LBP) interventions and to investigate if this distribution pattern changes over time. METHODS: We identified, in PubMed, 1,047 RCTs on nonspecific LBP published since 1992, of which a random sample of 400 was assessed for inclusion in the review. Included studies were grouped according to treatment type. Data were extracted on year of publication, types of treatment, total number of participants, age inclusion criteria, and age of included participants. RESULTS: A total of 274 RCTs published between 1992 and 2010 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 41.6% (n = 114) of the included trials excluded people ages >65 years. The pooled mean age of participants was 44.3 years (95% confidence interval 42.4-46.3); the pooled minimum age for inclusion was 19.8 years and the pooled maximum age for inclusion was 65.4 years. We found no trend of including older participants in RCTs on LBP over time. CONCLUSION: Despite an aging population around the globe, older adults are largely excluded from RCTs evaluating management of LBP, and there is no evidence of change in this practice over the last 2 decades.