Reflecting back, looking forward: A content analysis of scientific programs from the 2013-2016 Canadian Sex Research Forum annual conferences.

The vision of the Canadian Sex Research Forum (CSRF) is to be Canada's leading organization dedicated to interdisciplinary, theoretical, and applied sexuality research. We sought to determine the composition of four previous CSRF Annual Conference (2013-2016) scientific programs. We double-coded 356 abstracts on first author region, discipline, and faculty status; presentation format (oral/poster); and several non-exclusive yes/no questions regarding study populations, topics, and methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) to assess trends (per year) and likelihood of oral versus poster presentation. Most of authors were from psychology (86.5%), although this decreased over time (98.1% to 80.5%). Most abstracts used quantitative methods (82.9%) and there was a decrease over time in abstracts using qualitative (26.4% to 16.3%) and experimental (17.0% to 7.3%) methods. For study population and topic, there were increases over time in clinical population foci (7.6% to 23.6%) and decreases in race/ethnicity foci (3.8% to 0.8%) and methods topics (18.9% to 5.7%). Half of the abstracts were oral presentations (44.9%), which were more frequently awarded to faculty (81.1% vs. 38.6%), sexual practice topics (50.7% vs. 40.8%), relationship topics (52.3% vs. 40.7%), methodology topics (50.0% vs. 44.2%), and theory papers (71.4% vs. 43.3%). Oral presentations were less frequently awarded to single sex/gender populations (36.7% vs. 48.4%), student-only populations (35.3% vs. 51.2%), race/ethnicity foci (20.0% vs. 45.5%), and quantitative methods (43.4% vs. 52.5%). To achieve CSRF's vision of "interdisciplinary, theoretical, and applied research,'' we must undertake intentional strategic action (e.g., more content from non-psychology disciplines, more qualitative methods). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]