Background Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. Results A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996. Conclusions We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

ObjectivesAssess the feasibility and impact of a continuous professional development (CPD) course on type 2 diabetes and depression on health professionals’ intention to include sex and gender considerations in patient care.Design and settingIn collaboration with CPD organisations and patient-partners, we conducted a mixed-methods feasibility controlled trial with postintervention measures in three Canadian provinces.ParticipantsOf 178 eligible health professionals, 127 completed questionnaires and 67 participated in semistructured group discussions.Intervention and comparatorAn interactive 1 hour CPD course, codesigned with patient-partners, on diabetes and depression that included sex and gender considerations (innovation) was compared with a similar course that did not include them (comparator).OutcomesFeasibility of recruitment and retention of CPD organisations and patient-partners throughout the study; adherence to planned activities; health professionals’ intention to include sex and gender considerations in patient care as measured by the CPD-Reaction questionnaire; and barriers and facilitators using the Theoretical Domains Framework.ResultsAll recruited CPD organisations and patient-partners remained engaged throughout the study. All planned CPD courses occurred. Overall, 71% of eligible health professionals participated (63% under 44 years old; 79.5% women; 67.7% practising in French; 66.9% practising in Quebec; 78.8% in urban practice). After training, mean intention scores for the innovation (n=49) and control groups (n=78) were 5.65±0.19 and 5.19±0.15, respectively. Mean difference was −0.47 (CI −0.95 to 0.01; p=0.06). Adjusted for age, gender and practice settings, mean difference was −0.57 (CI −1.09 to −0.05; p=0.03). We identified eight theoretical domains related to barriers and six related to facilitators for providing sex-adapted and gender-adapted diabetes and depression care.ConclusionsCPD training on diabetes and depression that includes sex and gender considerations is feasible and, compared with CPD training that does not, may prompt health professionals to modify their care. Addressing identified barriers and facilitators could increase intention.Trial registration numberNCT03928132 with ClinicalTrials.gov; Post-results.

Background: Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute and gender as a socially constructed identity in published reporting guidelines. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed on the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statement of each guideline identified as full bibliographic reference and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 159 (39%) mentioned sex and/or gender in the checklist/abstract/main text. Of these, 90 (22.1%) mentioned only sex, and 91 (22.4%) mentioned only gender. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), sex and gender were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 39 (10.7%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria of correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of sex and gender in the checklists showed that the use of sex only started in 2003, while gender has been used since 1996. Conclusions: We assessed the integration of sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts in reporting guidelines. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.