(1)目标:本文对与干预措施有关的全球证据(即,政策,实践,指导方针,和立法)旨在支持妇女管理月经,月经失调,在工作中更年期。(2)方法:包括Medline(Ebsco)在内的数据库,CINAHL(Ebsco),Scopus,WebofScience,APAPsychInfo(Ebsco),国际人文完整(Ebsco),学术搜索总理(Ebsco),HeinOnline和OSH更新,和谷歌学者在2022年5月进行了搜索。(3)结果:在筛选的1181篇独特文章中,共66条。不到一半的文章(42%,28/66)介绍/审查了一项与妇女工作场所健康有关的干预措施。在66篇文章中,共有55篇文章是在13个国家/地区设置的,其余12篇文章被称为多国研究或评论。一半的文章介绍/审查干预是灰色文献,在英国和欧盟成员国进行了几次。以支持更年期女性为重点的干预措施是最常见的(43%,12/28),其次是月经(25%,7/28)和月经失调(7%,2/28).在审查过的文章中,建议被归类为对物理工作环境的调整,信息和培训需求,政策和流程。很少有文章明确介绍或肯定了与其干预相关的设计过程和/或评估。代替设计过程,这篇评论将推动干预发展的理由归类为:语音专家,经济理性主义,性别职业健康关注,向性别平等目标的文化转变,努力减少耻辱和污名。(4)结论:越来越多的证据旨在了解女性在工作场所管理月经和生殖健康的经验,以及这如何影响她们的工作/职业轨迹。然而,很少有研究明确地关注探索或理解干预措施,包括他们的设计或评估。大多数文章报告更年期指南,通常仅限于英国和欧盟成员国。尽管月经紊乱很普遍(例如,子宫内膜异位症和多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)),关于如何支持女性在工作中管理与这些疾病相关的症状的文献很少。因此,未来的政策应考虑如何更好地支持妇女在工作中管理月经和月经失调,并认识到在政策制定和干预后评估期间共同设计的重要性。需要进一步研究工作场所政策对雇主和雇员的影响。
(1) Objectives: This paper presents a scoping review of global evidence relating to interventions (i.e., policies, practices,
guidelines, and legislation) aimed at supporting women to manage
menstruation, menstrual disorders, and menopause at work. (2) Methods: Databases including Medline (Ebsco), CINAHL (Ebsco), Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsychInfo (Ebsco), Humanities International Complete (Ebsco), Academic Search Premier (Ebsco), HeinOnline and OSH Update, and Google Scholar were searched in May 2022. (3) Results: Of 1181 unique articles screened, 66 articles are included. Less half of the articles (42%, 28/66) presented/reviewed an intervention related to women\'s workplace health. A total of 55 out of the 66 articles are set across 13 countries with the remaining 12 articles described as multi-country studies or reviews. Half of the articles presenting/reviewing an intervention were grey literature, with several undertaken in UK and EU member countries. Interventions focusing on supporting women with menopause at work were the most common (43%, 12/28), followed by
menstruation (25%, 7/28) and menstrual disorders (7%, 2/28). Across the reviewed articles, recommendations were categorised as adjustments to the physical work environment, information and training needs, and policy and processes. Few articles explicitly presented or affirmed a design-process and/or evaluation tied to their intervention. In lieu of design-process, this review categorises the rationales driving the development of an intervention as: pronatalist, economic rationalism, gendered occupational health concern, cultural shift towards gender equity objectives, and efforts to reduced shame and stigma. (4) Conclusions: There is a growing body of evidence aimed at understanding women\'s experiences of managing their menstrual and reproductive health in the workplace and how this impacts their work/career trajectories. However, little research is explicitly concerned with exploring or understanding interventions, including their design or evaluation. Most articles report menopause
guidelines and are typically confined to the UK and EU-member countries. Despite the prevalence of menstrual disorders (e.g., endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)) there is limited literature focused on how women might be supported to manage symptoms associated with these conditions at work. Accordingly, future policies should consider how women can be better supported to manage
menstruation and menstrual disorders at work and recognise the importance of co-design during policy development and post-intervention evaluation. Further research needs to be undertaken on the impact of workplace policies on both employers and employees.