The Integration of Sex and Gender Considerations Into Biomedical Research: Lessons From International Funding Agencies.
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Expert narrative review and policy analysis with no empirical human dataset (by design analogy).
PubMed 34137862 · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgab434
What was done
The authors reviewed the policies, mechanisms, incentives, and requirements developed by major government-based international funding agencies—principally the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the European Commission (EC)—to integrate sex as a biological variable and gender as a sociocultural factor into biomedical research proposals and projects.
What was found
The abstract reports no quantitative metrics or empirical outcome data, noting that it is too early to analyze data on the success of the implemented policies. It describes distinct funding frameworks: the NIH emphasized sex as a biological variable (SABV) to enhance rigor and reproducibility; the CIHR instituted sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA); and the EC mandated the integration of the "gender dimension," incorporating sex, gender, and intersectional analysis.
Why it matters
This review outlines the primary institutional policy frameworks used to encourage sex and gender considerations in biomedical studies and argues for broader cross-institutional coordination across journals, academic institutions, and industry.
Limits
The paper is a qualitative narrative review providing no quantitative measurements, sample sizes, compliance data, or empirical analyses evaluating the direct impact of these policies on research quality or health outcomes.
Cited by
- supports About 10 years ago, scientific grant funding bodies established a requirement that funded preclinical biomedical research must evaluate both sexes rather than only male animals.