A Call to Action for Evidence-Based Military Women’s Health Care: Developing a Women’s Health Research Agenda That Addresses Sex and Gender in Health and Illness

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Trego ◽  
Candy Wilson ◽  
Nancy Steele

Women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are serving in complex occupational specialties that sustain national policy and ensure combat effectiveness of our forces. Their roles have evolved from supportive roles during early conflicts to active roles in combat support and counterinsurgency operations today. Although women have received military health care over the past three decades, sex- and gender-specific care has been limited to reproductive needs and has rarely addressed military-specific health risks and outcomes. The complexity of military jobs and increased deployments to combat operations has led to increased occupational and health risks for women. As differences have been noted between men and women’s deployment-related health outcomes, it is incumbent on the Military Health Care System (MHS) to create an evidence base that addresses sex and gender differences in the health of its service members. A working group of military women’s health advanced practice nurses (APN) and research experts proposes to address this gap in knowledge and practices through sex- and gender-specific research. A sex-and gender-based research agenda for military women’s health will be a valuable instrument to those who are dedicated to the health of this population, including members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force military nursing community. Using the knowledge that the research agenda generates, military health care providers can develop clinical practice guidelines, influence policy, and participate in program development to improve the health of servicewomen. Shaping a sex- and gender-specific military women’s health research agenda will create the foundation for future evidence-based care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Flavia Franconi ◽  
Ilaria Campesi

It is important to remember that gender health and illness should not to be conflated with women's health and illness. Turshen1 reports that numerous studies with ‘gender’ in the title use the word gender as a synonym for ‘women’ and as a result, men's gender-specific needs are missed. In addition, in reporting demographic characteristics of the study participants, some clinical trialists use the term ‘gender’ and some ‘sex’ to indicate men and women and this may create confusion. It can be difficult to separate the two concepts, because there are continuous and constant interactions and relationships between sex and gender3. In other words, sex and gender work together. However, little attention is paid to the fact that gender is a sex modifier. It is relevant to have in mind that both sex and gender affect health and illness4.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey Pérez Koehlmoos ◽  
Jessica Korona-Bailey ◽  
Miranda Lynn Janvrin ◽  
Cathaleen Madsen

ABSTRACT Introduction Racial disparities in health care are a well-documented phenomenon in the USA. Universal insurance has been suggested as a solution to mitigate these disparities. We examined race-based disparities in the Military Health System (MHS) by constructing and analyzing a framework of existing studies that measured disparities between direct care (care provided by military treatment facilities) and private sector care (care provided by civilian health care facilities). Materials and Methods We conducted a framework synthesis on 77 manuscripts published in partnership with the Comparative Effectiveness and Provider-Induced Demand Collaboration Project that use MHS electronic health record data to present an overview of racial disparities assessed for multiple treatment interventions in a nationally representative, universally insured population. Results We identified 32 studies assessing racial disparities in areas of surgery, trauma, opioid prescription and usage, women’s health, and others. Racial disparities were mitigated in postoperative complications, trauma care, and cancer screenings but persisted in diabetes readmissions, opioid usage, and minimally invasive women’s health procedures. Conclusion Universal coverage mitigates many, but not all, racial disparities in health care. An examination of a broader range of interventions, a closer look at variation in care provided by civilian facilities, and a look at the quality of care by race provide further opportunities for research.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Nanette Tibubos ◽  
Daniëlle Otten ◽  
Mareike Ernst ◽  
Manfred E. Beutel

BackgroundSex and gender are important modifiers of mental health and behavior in normal times and during crises. We investigated whether they were addressed by empirical, international research which explored the mental health and health behavior ramifications after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe systematically searched the databases PsyArXiv, PubMed, PsycInfo, Psyndex, PubPsych, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies assessing mental health outcomes (main outcomes) as well as potential risk and protective health behavior (additional outcomes) up to July 2, 2020. FindingsMost of the 80 publications fulfilling the selection criteria reflected the static difference perspective treating sex and gender as dichotomous variables. The focus was on internalizing disorders (esp. anxiety and depression) burdening women in particular, while externalizing disorders were neglected. Sex- and gender-specific evaluation of mental health care use has also been lacking. With respect to unfavorable health behavior in terms of adherence to prescribed protective measures, men constitute a risk group. InterpretationsWomen remain a vulnerable group burdened by multiple stresses and mental health symptoms. The neglect of sex and gender-specific evaluation of aggression-related disorders, substance addiction, and mental health care use in the early stage represents a potentially dangerous oversight.


Author(s):  
Anna C. Mastroianni ◽  
Leslie Meltzer Henry

Drawing on the ethical principles of the Belmont Report, this chapter critically examines the legacy and current policies and practices in the United States related to the inclusion of women in clinical research. Historically, protectionist policies and practices excluded women from research participation, justified by, for example, reliance on the male norm, male bias, and fears of legal liability resulting from tragic cases of fetal harm. Recognition of the ensuing harms to women’s health from exclusion and underrepresentation in research led to significant policy changes in the 1990s encouraging women’s participation in research. Although the knowledge gap in women’s health is narrowing, significant challenges remain, including the need to develop robust approaches to defining sex and gender, identifying and analyzing sex and gender differences, and acknowledging and addressing intersectionality and women’s health needs across their life spans.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document