Review A tool for distinguishing gender research from gender difference research- examples from work-related health Author: A. Hammarstr

1
ReviewA tool for distinguishing gender research
from gender difference research- examples from
work-related healthAuthor A. Hammarström

• By
• Prof. Dr. Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, PhD
• Full Professor
• Coronel Institute of Occupational Health
• Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam
• The Netherlands
• E-mail m.frings_at_amc.uva.nl

2
Comment

• Topic sex/gender differences in occupational
  health is relevant since
• high prevalence of work-related diseases like
  MSD, mental disorders, dermal and toxicology
  diseases

3
Prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases (Paoli et
al., 2001)

• Upper extremity diseases
• The Netherlands 23,4 other European countries
  22,8
• Low back
• The Netherlands 25,5 other European countries
  33,2
• Lower extremity diseases
• The Netherlands 6,4 other European countries
  11,5

4
Examples of jobs with work-related health
problems
5
Risk factors for Musculoskeletal upper extremity
diseases

• Physical
• Posture
• Repetitive movement
• Vibration
• Force
• Non-physical
• Too little recovery time
• High psychological demands
• Low social support

6
Adjusting working heights in construction work
for scaffolders
7
Conclusion

• Focus on occupational health and medicine is
  relevant
• Sex/gender topics in occupational health are
  (until now) scarce

8
Review Hammarström

• Three aims
• 1. identify possible problems and/or challenges
  with regard to the concepts of sex and gender in
  work-related health
• 2. to propose a tool to implement the theoretical
  insights
• 3. the tool will be used to distinguish gender
  research from gender or sex difference research

9
Comments

• Methods used in relation to the aims are not
  clear and transparent described
• Relevance and relation with work-related health?
• Unemployment and the number of articles related
  to unemployment are used as outcome measure and
  not the work-related health problem itself (a
  choice, but why?)

10
Comments

• The criteria for the proposed tool are not
  transparent
• Based on evidence?
• The relevance of the tool
• Users researchers? Other professionals
• The impact of the tool in relation to
  work-related health and sex/gender differences
• Implementation of the tool?

11
Implementation of the Back-Happy Tap-stand
12
In conclusion

• Focus on sex/gender research within occupational
  health and medicine is relevant
• Manuscript is not (yet) transparent and well
  structured in relation to the aims
• The relevance and impact of the tool is not clear
  in relation to sex/gender research and
  work-related health

13
Thank you for your attention