Differentiating sex and gender in health research to achieve gender equity.

Effectively tracking progress on initiatives focused on gender equity requires clear differentiation between the terms sex and gender. Sex usually refers to a person's biological characteristics, whereas gender refers to socially constructed roles and norms. Although both terms are often treated as binaries, gender is a spectrum and sex may include intersex individuals. While the terms are interrelated, they are sometimes conflated or used interchangeably in health data. Their fundamental distinctions, however, have implications for the conduct of research and the design of interventions targeting sex- and gender-based health disparities. We use the example of coronavirus disease 2019 to show how conflating these terms in data collection makes it difficult to ascertain whether disparities in infection rates, morbidity and mortality are determined by sex or gender. Although the exact process of collecting data on sex and gender may need to be adapted for specific contexts, there are steps that can be taken so that health data better reflect the differences between these concepts. Possible actions include using a two-step data collection process to determine both sex and gender of individuals, and encouraging recognition of intersex, third gender, transgender and gender nonbinary people. There also needs to be acceptance and commitment by data collectors and research editors; for example, by using tools such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research checklist. With clearer distinctions between these foundational terms and how they are used in health data, we can achieve more accurate research findings, better-tailored interventions and better progress towards gender equity.

Pour suivre efficacement les progrès des initiatives centrées sur l'égalité des genres, il est impératif de distinguer clairement les termes «sexe¼ et «genre¼. Le sexe fait généralement référence aux caractéristiques biologiques d'une personne, tandis que le genre se rapporte aux normes et rôles socialement construits. Bien que ces termes soient souvent considérés comme binaires, le genre est un spectre et le sexe est susceptible d'inclure les individus intersexués. Tous deux sont étroitement liés; en revanche, ils sont parfois confondus ou employés comme synonymes dans les données relatives à la santé. Pourtant, leurs différences fondamentales ont des conséquences sur la conduite des recherches et l'élaboration d'interventions ciblant les disparités sanitaires fondées sur le sexe et le genre. Dans le présent document, nous citons l'exemple de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 pour montrer que, lorsque ces termes sont assimilés l'un à l'autre dans la collecte de données, il devient difficile d'établir si le sexe ou le genre entraîne des variations au niveau des taux d'infection, de morbidité et de mortalité. Il pourrait s'avérer nécessaire d'adapter la méthode utilisée pour recueillir les données sur le sexe et le genre dans certains contextes spécifiques; néanmoins, il est possible d'entreprendre des démarches pour que les données relatives à la santé reflètent davantage les différences entre ces concepts. Parmi les actions envisagées figure l'usage d'un processus de collecte des données en deux étapes, servant à déterminer tant le sexe que le genre des individus et favorisant la reconnaissance des personnes intersexuées, du troisième genre, transgenres et non binaires. Celles et ceux chargés de récolter les données et de rédiger les recherches doivent également faire preuve d'acceptation et d'engagement, notamment en recourant à des outils tels que la liste de contrôle issue des recommandations sur l'égalité des sexes et des genres dans la recherche (Sex and Gender Equity in Research, SAGER). Mieux comprendre les différences entre ces deux termes essentiels et leur emploi dans les données sanitaires aboutira à des résultats plus précis, des interventions plus pertinentes et davantage de progrès vers l'égalité des genres.

Es necesaria una clara diferenciación entre los términos sexo y género para realizar un seguimiento eficaz del progreso de las iniciativas centradas en la igualdad de género. Por lo general, el término sexo hace referencia a las características biológicas de una persona, mientras que el término género hace referencia a las funciones y normas que dicta la sociedad. Aunque con frecuencia ambos términos se tratan como binarios, género es un espectro y sexo puede albergar personas intersexuales. Aunque estos términos están relacionados entre sí, en ocasiones se confunden o se utilizan indistintamente en los datos sanitarios. Sin embargo, las diferencias fundamentales que existen entre ellos, tienen implicaciones a la hora de llevar a cabo la investigación y el diseño de intervenciones centradas en las disparidades de los datos sanitarios a causa del uso de los términos sexo y género. Utilizamos el ejemplo de la enfermedad de coronavirus de 2019 para mostrar cómo el hecho de confundir estos términos a la hora de recopilar datos, hace que sea más difícil constatar si las disparidades existentes en las tasas de infección, morbilidad y mortalidad están determinadas por sexo o por género. Aunque es posible que sea necesario adaptar el proceso exacto de recopilación de datos sobre sexo y género a contextos específicos, se pueden adoptar medidas para que los datos sanitarios reflejen mejor las diferencias entre estos conceptos. Las posibles medidas incluyen el uso de un proceso de recopilación de datos compuesto de dos pasos para determinar tanto el sexo como el género de las personas, y fomentar el reconocimiento de las personas intersexuales, de tercer género, transgénero y de género no binario. Del mismo modo, es necesario que exista aceptación y compromiso por parte de los recopiladores de datos y de los editores de investigaciones; por ejemplo, mediante el uso de herramientas como la lista de verificación de Sexo e Igualdad de Género en la Investigación. Con distinciones más claras entre estos términos fundamentales, así como en la manera de utilizarlos en los datos sanitarios, podemos lograr resultados de investigación más precisos, intervenciones mejor adaptadas y mejores avances en la igualdad de género.

"It made me more confident that I have it under control": Patient and provider perspectives on moving to a two-drug ART regimen in the United States and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Two-drug regimens (2DR) to treat HIV infection have the potential to reduce long-term toxicity and increase therapeutic options for people living with HIV (PLHIV). Prior phase III trials, SWORD-1 and SWORD-2, as well as GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2, have demonstrated that a dolutegravir-based 2DR is as effective as three- or four-drug regimens among virologically suppressed patients. Limited information exists, however, on patient and provider experiences with 2DR to inform roll-out and integration into routine clinical care. METHODS: We conducted 39 in-depth interviews with PLHIV currently on 2DR in the context of routine care and 8 of their clinical care providers in the United States (U.S.) and Spain. Participants included 33 male and 6 female PLHIV and 8 providers. Interview topics explored perceptions of and experiences with 2DR compared to prior anti-retroviral regimens (ARVs), side effects, patient satisfaction, and clinical performance. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Participants viewed 2DR as a significant and positive advance, in terms of its ability to effectively treat HIV with reduced toxicity and essentially no reported side effects. Patients noted the central role providers played in the decision to switch to a 2DR regimen and, among U.S. participants, the importance of insurance coverage making this preferred option feasible. Patients and providers agreed that a 2DR regimen would be appropriate for any PLHIV regardless of whether they were treatment naïve or had significant experience with ARVs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' experiences with a 2DR regimen were positive with no participants, reporting side effects and all reporting continued viral suppression. Providers valued the reduced toxicity offered by 2DR and served as the primary gateway to a transition to 2DR for patients in both settings. This study provides a foundation for further research on the transition to 2DR regimens in other populations and contexts including low- and middle-income settings.

Exploring intergenerational changes in perceptions of gender roles and sexuality among Indigenous women in Oaxaca.

The south of Mexico has traditionally faced disproportionate social, health and economic disadvantage relative to the rest of the country, due in part to lower levels of economic and human development, and barriers faced by Indigenous populations. The state of Oaxaca, in particular, has one of the highest proportions of Indigenous people and consistently displays high rates of maternal mortality, sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancy. This study examines how social values and norms surrounding sexuality have changed between two generations of women living in Indigenous communities in Oaxaca. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 19 women from two generational cohorts in 12 communities. Comparison views of these two cohorts suggest that cultural gender norms continue to govern how women express and experience their sexuality. In particular, feelings of shame and fear permeate the expression of sexuality, virginity continues be a determinant of a woman's worth and motherhood remains the key attribute to womanhood. Evidence points to a transformation of norms, and access to information and services related to sexual health is increasing. Nonetheless, there is still a need for culturally appropriate sex education programmes focused on female empowerment, increased access to sexual health services, and a reduction in the stigma surrounding women's expressions of sexuality.

Constructing a validated scale to measure community-level abortion stigma in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: In Mexico, abortion stigma in the general population is largely unexplored. We developed a scale to measure abortion stigma at the community level, examine its prevalence and explore factors associated with abortion stigma in a nationally representative sample. STUDY DESIGN: Following intensive qualitative work to identify dimensions of the stigma construct, we developed a comprehensive list of statements that were cognitively tested and reduced to 33 to form a scale. We piloted the scale in a nationally and subregionally representative household public opinion survey administered to 5600 Mexican residents. RESULTS: Factor analysis tested the internal consistency and reliability of five previously hypothesized dimensions of abortion stigma: secrecy, religion, autonomy, discrimination and guilt/shame. Under the assumption that these dimensions were independent, confirmatory factor analysis indicated that each of these dimensions functioned as independent subscales. However, to test this assumption, we conducted exploratory factor analysis that revealed a strong codependence between discrimination, guilt/shame and religion statements, resulting in a 23-item four-factor model of abortion stigma and the elimination of the guilt/shame dimension. Both methods revealed a full scale and subscales with Cronbach's alphas between 0.80 and 0.90. Regression analyses suggested that older, less educated individuals living in the north of Mexico report higher levels of stigma, especially related to discrimination and religion. CONCLUSIONS: This community-level abortion stigma scale is the first to be developed and tested in Mexico. This tool may be used in Mexico and other similar country settings to document the prevalence of community-level abortion stigma, identify associated factors and test interventions aimed at reducing abortion stigma. IMPLICATIONS: Abortion stigma prevents women from accessing safe abortion services. Measuring community-level abortion stigma is key to documenting its pervasiveness, testing interventions aimed at reducing it and understanding associated factors. This scale may be useful in countries similar to Mexico to support policymakers, practitioners and advocates in upholding women's reproductive rights.