تخطي إلى التنقل الرئيسي تخطي إلى البحث تخطي إلى المحتوى الرئيسي

Sex and gender reporting and differences in trials evaluating patient decision aids: a secondary analysis of systematic review with meta-analysis

  • Dawn Stacey
  • , France Légaré
  • , Krystina B. Lewis
  • , Maureen Smith
  • , Meg E. Carley
  • , Michael J. Barry
  • , Carol Bennett
  • , Paulina Bravo
  • , Karina Dahl Steffensen
  • , Jeanette Finderup
  • , Yulia Gendler
  • , Amédé Gogovor
  • , Janet Gunderson
  • , Shannon E. Kelly
  • , Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau
  • , Logan Trenaman
  • , Lyndal Trevena
  • , Robert J. Volk
  • , Ian D. Graham

نتاج البحث: نشر في مجلةمقالةمراجعة النظراء

ملخص

OBJECTIVES: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health decisions and have the potential to impact favourably on health inequities by reducing gender bias in clinical practice. The aim was to explore sex and gender reporting and differences in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDAs for adults making treatment or screening decisions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Cochrane review of PtDAs of RCTs that reported sex and/or gender. The original review searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and EBSCO from journal inception to March 2022. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this secondary analysis, we only included primary outcomes from the original review. We assessed appropriate use of terminology for sex (biological attribute) and gender (social construct). When terms were used interchangeably, it was considered inaccurate. Findings were synthesised descriptively, and we used meta-analysis when two or more RCTs were conducted with females/women or males/men using similar outcome measures. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Informed values-choice congruence and the quality of the decision-making process (eg, knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision making, undecided) and adverse events (eg, decision regret, emotional distress) by sex and gender. RESULTS: Of 209 RCTs in the original review, 206 reported sex and/or gender, with 35 (17%) using accurate terminology. Of 206 RCTs, 70 were with females/women only, 27 males/men only, 12 analysed by sex/gender and 97 RCTs did not disaggregate findings by sex or gender. Meta-analysis comparing RCTs for females/women to usual care and RCTs for males/men only compared with usual care showed similar mean differences in knowledge scores (10.84 vs 9.38 out of 100; p=0.44). Males/men had significantly higher self-reported participation in decision making compared with females/women (RR 3.16 vs 0.95; p<0.01). Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In PtDA RCTs, sex and gender terms are used interchangeably and 6% analysed outcomes by sex or gender. Meta-analysis of males/men only given PtDAs showed higher self-reported decision making participation in clinical practice compared to usual care versus females/women only compared with usual care. Researchers must improve reporting sex and gender in PtDA RCTs to assess how it influences health inequities.

اللغة الأصليةالإنجليزيّة
الصفحات (من إلى)e099136
دوريةBMJ Open
مستوى الصوت16
رقم الإصدار4
المعرِّفات الرقمية للأشياء
حالة النشرنُشِر - 1 أبريل 2026

بصمة

أدرس بدقة موضوعات البحث “Sex and gender reporting and differences in trials evaluating patient decision aids: a secondary analysis of systematic review with meta-analysis'. فهما يشكلان معًا بصمة فريدة.

قم بذكر هذا