Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

Employment Equity Gender Occupational health Scoping review

Journal

BMC medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Titre abrégé: BMC Med

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Apr 2024

Historique:

received: 28 08 2023

accepted: 07 03 2024

medline: 6 4 2024

pubmed: 6 4 2024

entrez: 5 4 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS METHODS

Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework.

RESULTS RESULTS

We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex.

TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03346-7 PMID: 38581003

pubmed: 38581003

doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03346-7

pii: 10.1186/s12916-024-03346-7

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

149

Subventions

Organisme : CIHR

ID : PJT-165927

Organisme : CIHR Operating Grants

ID : 468557

Organisme : CIHR Operating Grants

ID : 477339

Informations de copyright

Références

Gender equality still ‘300 years away’, says UN secretary general: The Guardian; 2023. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/06/antonio-guterres-un-general-assembly-gender-equality .

Achieve gender equaility and empower women and girls: United Nations; 2023. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5 .

Gender Equality: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; 2023. Available from: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/gender-equality .

Hoffower H, Thier J. Melinda French Gates on her foundation’s shocking findings that gender equality won’t happen for 100 years: ‘Money is power’: Fortune; 2022. Available from: https://fortune.com/2022/09/13/gender-equality-stalled-pandemic-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-study/ .

Woetzel J, Madgavkar A, Ellingrud K, Labaye E, Devillard S, Kutcher E, et al. The power of parity: how advancing women’s equality can add $12 trillion to global growth. New York: McKinsley Global Institute; 2015.

Women in global health. Policy brief: the state of women and leadership in global health. International: Women in Global Health; 2023.

Tricco AC, Nincic V, Darvesh N, Rios P, Khan PA, Ghassemi MM, et al. Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2):e067771.

pubmed: 36792322 pmcid: 9933760 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067771

Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: a primer for health research. Vancouver: Women’s Health Research Network; 2007.

PROGRESS-Plus: 2023. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus .

Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, Mclnerney P, Godfrey CM, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950–2.

pubmed: 35249995 doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483

Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Leg Forum. 1989;1989(1):139–67.

Crenshaw K. Women of color at the center: selections from the third national conference on women of color and the law: mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1991;43(6):1241–79.

doi: 10.2307/1229039

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

pubmed: 33038124 doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.

pubmed: 25555855 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953–68.

pubmed: 35102103 doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242

SPOR Evidence Alliance. Reflective exercise: 2021. Available from: https://sporevidencealliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/4.-SPOREA_Reflective-EDI-Exercise-UPDATED_2021.pdf .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

pubmed: 30178033 doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1(2):1–9.

Public Health Agency of Canada. How to integrate intersectionality theory in quantitative health equity analysis? A rapid review and checklist of promising practices: 2022. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/publications/science-research-data/how-integrate-intersectionality-theory-quantitative-health-equity-analysis/phac-siithia-checklist.pdf .

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.

pubmed: 28768629 pmcid: 5539518 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

pubmed: 27005575 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Grey matters: a tool for searching health-related grey literature. Ottawa: 2023.

Grisso JA, Sammel MD, Rubenstein AH, Speck RM, Conant EF, Scott P, et al. A randomized controlled trial to improve the success of women assistant professors. J Womens Health. 2017;26(5):571–9.

doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6025

Matsutaka Y, Otsuka Y, Tsuno K, Iida J, Fuji K. Development and evaluation of a training program to reduce homophobia and transphobia among human resource staff and health professionals in the workplace: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2022;11(1):153–64.

doi: 10.1037/sgd0000590

Bulte E, Lensink R, Vu N. Do gender and business trainings affect business outcomes? Experimental evidence from Vietnam. Manag Sci. 2017;63(9):2885–902.

doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2472

Rivera LA, Tilcsik A. Scaling down inequality: rating scales, gender bias, and the architecture of evaluation. Am Sociol Rev. 2019;84(2):248–74.

doi: 10.1177/0003122419833601

Peterson DA, Biederman LA, Andersen D, Ditonto TM, Roe K. Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0216241.

pubmed: 31091292 pmcid: 6519786 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216241

O’Meara K, Jaeger A, Misra J, Lennartz C, Kuvaeva A. Undoing disparities in faculty workloads: a randomized trial experiment. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0207316.

pubmed: 30566472 pmcid: 6300212 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207316

Shankar AV, Onyura M, Alderman J. Agency-based empowerment training enhances sales capacity of female energy entrepreneurs in Kenya. J Health Commun. 2015;20(Suppl 1):67–75.

pubmed: 25839204 doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.1002959

Smith JL, Handley IM, Zale AV, Rushing S, Potvin MA. Now hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty gender diversity in STEM. Bioscience. 2015;65(11):1084–7.

pubmed: 26955075 pmcid: 4777060 doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv138

Webb TL, Sheeran P, Pepper J. Gaining control over responses to implicit attitude tests: implementation intentions engender fast responses on attitude-incongruent trials. Br J Soc Psychol. 2012;51(1):13–32.

pubmed: 22435844 doi: 10.1348/014466610X532192

Paek E. Manager gender and changing attitudes toward schedule control: evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Study. Community Work Fam. 2022;27(1):98–115.

doi: 10.1080/13668803.2022.2043827

Bates S, Lauve-Moon K, McCloskey R, Anderson-Butcher D. The Gender By Us® Toolkit: a pilot study of an intervention to disrupt implicit gender bias. Affilia. 2019;34(3):295–312.

doi: 10.1177/0886109919847482

Huis MA, Hansen N, Otten S, Lensink R. The impact of husbands’ involvement in goal-setting training on women’s empowerment: first evidence from an intervention among female microfinance borrowers in Sri Lanka. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2019;29(4):336–51.

doi: 10.1002/casp.2404

Warren AR. A video intervention for professionals working with transgender and gender nonconforming older adults. 2017.

Cook NJ, Grillos T, Andersson KP. Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(4):330–4.

doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0438-4

Bapna S, Funk R. Interventions for improving professional networking for women: Experimental evidence from the IT sector. MIS Q. 2020;45(2):593–636.

doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2021/15620

Dahl GB, Kotsadam A, Rooth D-O. Does integration change gender attitudes? The effect of randomly assigning women to traditionally male teams. Q J Econ. 2021;136(2):987–1030.

doi: 10.1093/qje/qjaa047

Wiseman JA. Attitude and behavioral change in academic advisors at Montana State University: sex role stereotyping and sexual bias in vocational choice. Montana: Montana State University; 1979.

Chinen M, Coombes A, De Hoop T, Castro-Zarzur R, Elmeski M. Can teacher training programs influence gender norms? Mixed-methods experimental evidence from Northern Uganda. J Educ Emerg. 2017;3(1):44–78.

Ginther DK, Currie JM, Blau FD, Croson RT. Can mentoring help female assistant professors in economics? An evaluation by randomized trial. In: AEA Papers and Proceedings. American Economic Association: Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203; 2020. p. 205–9.

Brady LM, Kaiser CR, Major B, Kirby TA. It’s fair for us: diversity structures cause women to legitimize discrimination. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2015;57:100–10.

doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.11.010

Huis M, Lensink R, Vu N, Hansen N. Impacts of the Gender and Entrepreneurship Together Ahead (GET Ahead) training on empowerment of female microfinance borrowers in Northern Vietnam. World Dev. 2019;120:46–61.

doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.04.001

Ismayilova L, Karimli L, Gaveras E, Tô-Camier A, Sanson J, Chaffin J, et al. An integrated approach to increasing women’s empowerment status and reducing domestic violence: results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial in a West African country. Psychol Violence. 2018;8(4):448.

pubmed: 34790432 doi: 10.1037/vio0000136

Woolnough HM. A longitudinal study to investigate the impact of a career development and mentoring programme on female mental health nurses. United Kingdom: The University of Manchester; 2007.

Tricco AC, Bourgeault I, Moore A, Grunfeld E, Peer N, Straus SE. Advancing gender equity in medicine. CMAJ. 2021;193(7):E244–50.

pubmed: 33593950 pmcid: 8034331 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.200951

Tricco AC, Straus SE, Moher D. How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews? BMC Med. 2011;9(1):1–4.

doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-31

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Glossary of Funding-Related Terms: 2023. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/34190.html#p .

SPOR Evidence Alliance. Patient Partner Appreciation Policy and Protocol: 2022. Available from: https://sporevidencealliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/SPOREA_Patient-and-Public-Appreciation-Policy_2021.01.14-1.pdf .

Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173.

pubmed: 28892482 pmcid: 5593172 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173

Women UN. Progress of the world’s women 2015–2016: transforming economies, realizing rights. New York: UN Women; 2015.

doi: 10.18356/2d5f74e3-en

International Labour Office. Women and men in the informal economy: a statistical picture. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2018.