A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014)
Background In occupational epidemiology, a male‐centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies. Methods A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in Pu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of industrial medicine 2018-05, Vol.61 (5), p.372-382 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 382 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 372 |
| container_title | American journal of industrial medicine |
| container_volume | 61 |
| creator | Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier Vaca Vasquez, Patricia Counil, Emilie |
| description | Background
In occupational epidemiology, a male‐centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.
Methods
A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003‐2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
Results
In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women‐only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men‐to‐women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men‐only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men‐only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex‐adjustment for mixed studies.
Conclusions
The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under‐representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ajim.22823 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01780219v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2024880790</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3913-6d324f7f878211dc761c5b538427ad1b0b75aafb6ee881283e627f74816d3c933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQhy0EokvhwgMgS1xopRSPncQOt6iC_tEiLnC2HGey61UShzjZam9cufGMPAle0vbY00gz33zSzI-Qt8AugDH-0excd8G54uIZWQErZMK4TJ-TVSyQiEzlJ-RVCDvGANI8fUlOeJExlQpYkd8ltb4bRtxiH9weqRmG0Ru7pb6h0xbpBvsaR1o5E6jrqbd2HszkfG9aak1v4wwHV2PnfOs3h0-0pOEQJuwiZOmIe4d3R1c795uHhTDNtcNAP3DGxN9ffziD9Ow1edGYNuCb-3pKfnz5_P3yOll_u7q5LNeJFQWIJK8FTxvZKKk4QG1lDjarMqFSLk0NFatkZkxT5YhKAVcCcy4bmSqIm7YQ4pScLd6tafUwus6MB-2N09flWh97DKRiHIo9RPb9wsaf_JwxTHrn5zGeHjRnPFWKyYJF6nyh7OhDGLF51ALTx4T0MSH9P6EIv7tXzlWH9SP6EEkEYAHuXIuHJ1S6vL35ukj_ASwumlg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2024880790</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier ; Vaca Vasquez, Patricia ; Counil, Emilie</creator><creatorcontrib>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier ; Vaca Vasquez, Patricia ; Counil, Emilie</creatorcontrib><description>Background
In occupational epidemiology, a male‐centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.
Methods
A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003‐2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
Results
In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women‐only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men‐to‐women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men‐only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men‐only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex‐adjustment for mixed studies.
Conclusions
The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under‐representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0271-3586</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0274</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22823</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29508431</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Bias ; bias (epidemiology) ; Cancer ; carcinogens ; Discrimination ; Ecology, environment ; Epidemiologic Methods ; Epidemiologic Research Design ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Gender ; Health ; Humans ; Industry ; Life Sciences ; Lung cancer ; lung neoplasm ; Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Lung Neoplasms - etiology ; Male ; Men ; Occupational Diseases - epidemiology ; Occupational Diseases - etiology ; occupational exposure ; Occupational Exposure - adverse effects ; Occupations ; Populations ; Sex ; Sexism ; Systematic review ; women ; women's health</subject><ispartof>American journal of industrial medicine, 2018-05, Vol.61 (5), p.372-382</ispartof><rights>2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3913-6d324f7f878211dc761c5b538427ad1b0b75aafb6ee881283e627f74816d3c933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3913-6d324f7f878211dc761c5b538427ad1b0b75aafb6ee881283e627f74816d3c933</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2225-6835 ; 0000-0002-8527-4662</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fajim.22823$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fajim.22823$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508431$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://univ-rennes.hal.science/hal-01780219$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaca Vasquez, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Counil, Emilie</creatorcontrib><title>A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014)</title><title>American journal of industrial medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Ind Med</addtitle><description>Background
In occupational epidemiology, a male‐centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.
Methods
A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003‐2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
Results
In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women‐only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men‐to‐women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men‐only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men‐only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex‐adjustment for mixed studies.
Conclusions
The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under‐representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>bias (epidemiology)</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>carcinogens</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Ecology, environment</subject><subject>Epidemiologic Methods</subject><subject>Epidemiologic Research Design</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Industry</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>lung neoplasm</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - etiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases - etiology</subject><subject>occupational exposure</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - adverse effects</subject><subject>Occupations</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>Sex</subject><subject>Sexism</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>women</subject><subject>women's health</subject><issn>0271-3586</issn><issn>1097-0274</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQhy0EokvhwgMgS1xopRSPncQOt6iC_tEiLnC2HGey61UShzjZam9cufGMPAle0vbY00gz33zSzI-Qt8AugDH-0excd8G54uIZWQErZMK4TJ-TVSyQiEzlJ-RVCDvGANI8fUlOeJExlQpYkd8ltb4bRtxiH9weqRmG0Ru7pb6h0xbpBvsaR1o5E6jrqbd2HszkfG9aak1v4wwHV2PnfOs3h0-0pOEQJuwiZOmIe4d3R1c795uHhTDNtcNAP3DGxN9ffziD9Ow1edGYNuCb-3pKfnz5_P3yOll_u7q5LNeJFQWIJK8FTxvZKKk4QG1lDjarMqFSLk0NFatkZkxT5YhKAVcCcy4bmSqIm7YQ4pScLd6tafUwus6MB-2N09flWh97DKRiHIo9RPb9wsaf_JwxTHrn5zGeHjRnPFWKyYJF6nyh7OhDGLF51ALTx4T0MSH9P6EIv7tXzlWH9SP6EEkEYAHuXIuHJ1S6vL35ukj_ASwumlg</recordid><startdate>201805</startdate><enddate>201805</enddate><creator>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier</creator><creator>Vaca Vasquez, Patricia</creator><creator>Counil, Emilie</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2225-6835</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-4662</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201805</creationdate><title>A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014)</title><author>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier ; Vaca Vasquez, Patricia ; Counil, Emilie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3913-6d324f7f878211dc761c5b538427ad1b0b75aafb6ee881283e627f74816d3c933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>bias (epidemiology)</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>carcinogens</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Ecology, environment</topic><topic>Epidemiologic Methods</topic><topic>Epidemiologic Research Design</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Industry</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>lung neoplasm</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - etiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases - etiology</topic><topic>occupational exposure</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - adverse effects</topic><topic>Occupations</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>Sex</topic><topic>Sexism</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>women</topic><topic>women's health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaca Vasquez, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Counil, Emilie</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>American journal of industrial medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Betansedi, Charles‐Olivier</au><au>Vaca Vasquez, Patricia</au><au>Counil, Emilie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014)</atitle><jtitle>American journal of industrial medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ind Med</addtitle><date>2018-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>372</spage><epage>382</epage><pages>372-382</pages><issn>0271-3586</issn><eissn>1097-0274</eissn><abstract>Background
In occupational epidemiology, a male‐centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.
Methods
A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003‐2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
Results
In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women‐only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men‐to‐women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men‐only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men‐only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex‐adjustment for mixed studies.
Conclusions
The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under‐representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>29508431</pmid><doi>10.1002/ajim.22823</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2225-6835</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-4662</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0271-3586 |
| ispartof | American journal of industrial medicine, 2018-05, Vol.61 (5), p.372-382 |
| issn | 0271-3586 1097-0274 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01780219v1 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Bias bias (epidemiology) Cancer carcinogens Discrimination Ecology, environment Epidemiologic Methods Epidemiologic Research Design Epidemiology Female Gender Health Humans Industry Life Sciences Lung cancer lung neoplasm Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology Lung Neoplasms - etiology Male Men Occupational Diseases - epidemiology Occupational Diseases - etiology occupational exposure Occupational Exposure - adverse effects Occupations Populations Sex Sexism Systematic review women women's health |
| title | A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003‐2014) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T09%3A13%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comprehensive%20approach%20of%20the%20gender%20bias%20in%20occupational%20cancer%20epidemiology:%20A%20systematic%20review%20of%20lung%20cancer%20studies%20(2003%E2%80%902014)&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20industrial%20medicine&rft.au=Betansedi,%20Charles%E2%80%90Olivier&rft.date=2018-05&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=372&rft.epage=382&rft.pages=372-382&rft.issn=0271-3586&rft.eissn=1097-0274&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ajim.22823&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2024880790%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2024880790&rft_id=info:pmid/29508431&rfr_iscdi=true |