Search

Background: Sex and gender impacts health outcomes and disease risk throughout life. The health of women and members of the Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning (2S/LGBTQ +) community is often compromised as they experience delays in diagnosis. Distinct knowledge gaps in the health of these populations have prompted funding agencies to mandate incorporation of sex and gender into research. Sex- and gender-informed research perspectives and methodology increases rigor, promotes discovery, and expands the relevance of health research. Thus, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) implemented a sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) framework recommending the inclusion of SGBA in project proposals in 2010 and then mandating the incorporation of SGBA into grant proposals in 2019. To examine whether this mandate resulted in increased mention of sex or gender in funded research abstracts, we searched the publicly available database of grant abstracts funded by CIHR to analyze the percentage of abstracts that mentioned sex or gender of the population to be studied in the funded research. To better understand broader health equity issues we also examined whether the funded grant abstracts mentioned either female-specific health research or research within the 2S/LGBTQ + community. Results: We categorized a total of 8,964 Project and Operating grant abstracts awarded from 2009 to 2020 based on their study of female-specific or a 2S/LGBTQ + populations or their mention of sex or gender. Overall, under 3% of grant abstracts funded by CIHR explicitly mentioned sex and/or gender, as 1.94% of grant abstracts mentioned sex, and 0.66% mentioned gender. As one of the goals of SGBA is to inform on health equity and understudied populations with respect to SGBA, we also found that 5.92% of grant abstracts mentioned female-specific outcomes, and 0.35% of grant abstracts focused on the 2S/LGBTQ + community. Conclusions: Although there was an increased number of funded grants with abstracts that mentioned sex and 2S/LGBTQ + health across time, these increases were less than 2% between 2009 and 2020. The percentage of funded grants with abstracts mentioning female-specific health or gender differences did not change significantly over time. The percentage of funding dollars allocated to grants in which the abstracts mentioned sex or gender also did not change substantially from 2009 to 2020, with grant abstracts mentioning sex or female-specific research increasing by 1.26% and 3.47%, respectively, funding allocated to research mentioning gender decreasing by 0.49% and no change for 2S/LGBTQ +-specific health. Our findings suggest more work needs to be done to ensure the public can evaluate what populations will be examined with the funded research with respect to sex and gender to advance awareness and health equity in research. Highlights: The percentage of funded grants in which the abstracts mentioned sex or gender in health research remained largely unchanged from 2009 to 2020 with the largest increase of 1.57% for those mentioning sex. Total funding amounts for grants that mentioned sex or gender in the abstract stagnated or declined from 2009 to 2020. The percentage of funded grants in which the abstracts focusing on female-specific health did not change across 2009–2020, but the percentage of funding dollars increased by 3.47%. The percentage of grants in which the abstracts mentioned 2S/LGBTQ +-specific health more than tripled across 2009–2020 but remained less than 1% of all funded grants. Plain language summary: This paper examined the publicly available database of grant abstracts funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) from 2009 to 2020 to determine the percentage of abstracts that mentioned sex or gender of the population to be studied. To better understand broader health equity issues we also examined whether the funded grant abstracts mentioned either female-specific health research or research within the 2S/LGBTQ + community. Although there was an increased number of funded grants with abstracts that mentioned sex and 2S/LGBTQ + health across time, these increases were less than 2% between 2009 and 2020. The percentage of funded grants with abstracts mentioning female-specific health or gender differences did not change significantly over time. The percentage of CIHR funding dollars allocated to grants in which the abstracts mentioned sex or female-specific research increased by 1.26% and 3.47%, respectively. However, funding allocated to research mentioning gender decreased by 0.49% and there was no significant change in funding amounts for 2S/LGBTQ +-specific health across time. We outline several recommendations for funding agencies to improve access to information especially on sex, gender and broader health equity populations to ensure the public can evaluate what populations will be examined within the funded research. Our findings suggest that to advance greater health equity in research, different strategies need to be employed to improve researcher utilization of sex and gender-based analysis as well as to advance health equity with respect to 2S/LGBTQ and women's health questions in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The success of any COVID-19 vaccine program ultimately depends on high vaccine uptake. This study determined overall intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and identified factors that predict intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in Canada, specifically in key priority groups identified by the American Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for early immunization.Methods: Individuals from research cohorts from the general population of British Columbia aged 25-69 were invited complete an online survey based on validated scales and theoretical frameworks to explore intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Two multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to determine factors associated with intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.Results: Of 4948 respondents, 79.8% intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In multivariable modeling, respondents who intended to receive the vaccine had higher vaccine attitudinal scores (p <  0.001), reported greater influence of direct social norms (p = 0.001), and indirect social norms, including their family physician (p = 0.024), and Provincial Health Officer (p = 0.011). Older individuals (> 60 years) were more likely to intend to receive the vaccine, while females (95%CI 0.57,0.93), those with less than high school education (95%CI 0.5,0.76), those who self-identified as non-white (95%CI 0.60,0.92), self-identified as Indigenous (95%CI 0.36,0.84) and essential non-health care workers (95%CI 0.59,0.86) had lower adjusted odds of intending to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.Conclusions: To optimize vaccine coverage, public health should focus on key messages around vaccine safety and benefit, and leverage trusted practitioners for messaging. As certain key populations identified by NACI and ACIP for early immunization report a lower intention to vaccinate, there is a need for in-depth education and support for these communities to ensure optimal uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]