背景:各种研究表明工作场所的性别差异以及需要进一步干预。这项研究确定并检查了随机对照试验(RCT)中有关干预措施的证据,这些干预措施检查了工作场所或志愿者环境中的性别平等。另一个目的是确定干预措施是否考虑了性别和其他变量的交叉,包括PROGRESS-Plus权益变量(例如,种族/种族)。
方法:使用JBI指南进行的范围审查。在MEDLINE搜索文献,Embase,PsycINFO,CINAHL,WebofScience,ERIC,法律期刊和书籍索引,PAIS指数,策略索引文件,和加拿大商业和时事数据库从成立到2022年5月9日,更新搜索时间为2022年10月17日。使用系统评论和Meta分析扩展到范围审查的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)报告结果。性别和性别平等研究(SAGER)指南,加强交叉性理论在健康不平等分析(SITHIA)清单中的整合,以及《患者和公众参与报告指南》(GRIPP)第2版清单。所有就业或志愿者部门的设置都包括在内。纳入的干预措施旨在促进工作场所的性别平等,目标是:(a)个人、(b)组织,或(c)系统。任何比较者都有资格。成果措施包括任何与性别平等有关的成果,无论是衡量干预效果(由纳入的研究定义)还是实施.数据分析本质上是描述性的。正如JBI范围审查指南中所建议的那样,只进行了高层次的内容分析来对干预措施进行分类,这是使用以前发布的框架报告的。
结果:我们筛选了8855篇引文,803个灰色文献来源,和663篇全文,产生24个独特的RCT和一个符合纳入标准的伴随报告。大多数研究(91.7%)未能报告他们如何确定性别或性别。24项研究中有23项(95.8%)报告了至少一个PROGRESS-Plus变量:通常是性别或性别或职业。两个RCT(8.3%)确定了非二元性别认同。没有一项RCT报告了性别与其他特征之间的关系(例如,残疾,年龄,等。).我们确定了24种促进工作场所性别平等的干预措施,这些干预措施经过评估并分为以下一个或多个主题:(i)量化性别影响;(ii)行为或系统变化;(iii)职业灵活性;(iv)提高知名度,认可,和代表性;(五)创造发展机会,导师,和赞助;和(Vi)财务支持。在这些干预措施中,20/24(83.3%)对其主要结果有积极的结论陈述(例如,提高学术生产力,增加自尊)跨异质结果。
结论:关于促进工作场所性别平等的干预措施的文献很少。虽然一些干预措施在各种结果中得出了积极的结论,需要考虑具体情况和文化的标准化成果衡量标准。报告的PROGRESS-Plus项目很少。没有充分考虑到非二元性别认同和与交叉性有关的问题。未来的研究应该为性别和性别提供一致和当代的定义。
背景:开放科学框架https://osf.io/x8yae。
BACKGROUND: 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).
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: 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: 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.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .