...
首页> 外文期刊>Occupational and environmental medicine >How is sex considered in recent epidemiological publications on occupational risks?
【24h】

How is sex considered in recent epidemiological publications on occupational risks?

机译:在最近关于职业风险的流行病学出版物中如何考虑性别?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: Although women account for almost half the working population in industrialised countries, a sex bias persists in publications on medical research in general and occupational health in particular. The objective was to review recent publications on how sex is considered in epidemiological studies of occupational health, and to answer the following questions: are men and women studied equally, what are the respective characteristics of the studies which comprise only men, only women, and both, and what strategy of data analysis is chosen by the authors to take account of the sex factor in mixed studies. MATERIALS: This review was based on publications in six journals during the year 1997, and included all the original articles reporting an epidemiological study of occupational health. RESULTS: In all, 348 articles were reviewed. In 40 articles (11%), the sex of the study population was not specified. In 177 articles (51%), the study population was mixed. In 108 (31%), the population consisted exclusively of men, and in only 23 (7%), exclusively of women. Even when study populations were mixed, they included fewer women than men. The sex composition of the population was related to the occupational risk factor considered, and also to health outcome. Industrial sector workers, and exposure to chemicals were more likely to be studied in samples of men. Mortality and health outcomes such as neoplasms and cardiovascular diseases were also more often studied among men. Surprisingly, study design differed significantly according to the sex of the population, and prospective studies, cohort studies, and exposed versus non-exposed studies were more often carried out in samples of men. Among the 177 mixed studies, sex was not investigated in over a quarter (27%). In 26 articles (15%), sex was not taken into account, but the authors attempted to justify this decision. In 46 mixed studies (26%), the results were adjusted for sex, and in 46 (26%), the authors gave separate results for men and women. In 11 studies (6%), more complete strategies of data analysis were chosen, including research for interactions or adjustment, followed by stratification. CONCLUSION: This review of recent publications in occupational health epidemiology showed that women are still less often studied than men, and that the sex factor is not investigated in many mixed studies. The results therefore underline the need for further research on occupational hazards among women, and on sex differences.
机译:目标:尽管妇女占工业化国家劳动人口的近一半,但有关医学研究(特别是职业健康)的出版物仍然存在性别偏见。目的是审查有关职业健康的流行病学研究中如何考虑性别的最新出版物,并回答以下问题:男女是否受到平等研究,仅男性,仅女性和女性的研究的各自特征是什么?两者,以及作者选择哪种数据分析策略来考虑混合研究中的性别因素。材料:这篇评论是基于1997年在6种期刊上发表的文章,并包括了所有报告职业卫生的流行病学研究的原始文章。结果:总共审查了348篇文章。在40篇文章中(11%),未指定研究人群的性别。在177篇文章(占51%)中,研究人群参差不齐。在108个国家中(31%),人口仅由男性组成,而在23个人口中(7%),仅由女性组成。即使研究人群混杂在一起,他们的女性人数也少于男性。人口的性别构成与所考虑的职业危险因素以及健康状况有关。在男性样本中,更可能研究工业部门的工人和化学物质的暴露。男性中更经常研究死亡率和健康结局,例如肿瘤和心血管疾病。令人惊讶的是,根据人群的性别,研究设计存在显着差异,并且前瞻性研究,队列研究以及裸露和未暴露的研究更多地在男性样本中进行。在177项混合研究中,超过四分之一(27%)的人未进行性行为调查。在26篇文章(占15%)中,没有考虑性别,但是作者试图证明这一决定是合理的。在46项混合研究(26%)中,对结果进行了性别调整,而在46项(26%)中,作者分别给出了男女结果。在11项研究(6%)中,选择了更完整的数据分析策略,包括相互作用或调整研究,然后进行分层。结论:对最近有关职业卫生流行病学出版物的评论表明,女性的研究频率仍然低于男性,并且在许多混合研究中并未研究性别因素。因此,结果强调需要进一步研究妇女的职业危害和性别差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号