Despite increasing awareness of the importance of gender perspectives in health science, there is conceptual confusion regarding the meaning and the use of central gender theoretical concepts. We argue that it is essential to clarify how central concepts are used within gender theory and how to apply them to health research. We identify six gender theoretical concepts as central and interlinked-but problematic and ambiguous in health science: sex, gender, intersectionality, embodiment, gender equity and gender equality. Our recommendations are that: the concepts sex and gender can benefit from a gender relational theoretical approach (i.e., a focus on social processes and structures) but with additional attention to the interrelations between sex and gender; intersectionality should go beyond additive analyses to study complex intersections between the major factors which potentially influence health and ensure that gendered power relations and social context are included; we need to be aware of the various meanings given to embodiment, which achieve an integration of gender and health and attend to different levels of analyses to varying degrees; and appreciate that gender equality concerns absence of discrimination between women and men while gender equity focuses on women's and men's health needs, whether similar or different. We conclude that there is a constant need to justify and clarify our use of these concepts in order to advance gender theoretical development. Our analysis is an invitation for dialogue but also a call to make more effective use of the knowledge base which has already developed among gender theorists in health sciences in the manner proposed in this paper.

BackgroundFor patients with chronic pain, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations makes it difficult to identify patients who would benefit from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP). Yet, there is limited knowledge regarding the predictors of MMRP’s outcomes. This study identifies predictors of outcome of MMRPs at a 12-month follow-up (FU-12) based on data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP).MethodsPatients with chronic pain from two clinical departments in Sweden completed the SQRP questionnaires—background, pain characteristics, psychological symptoms, function, activity/participation, health and quality of life—on three occasions: 1) during their first visit; 2) immediately after the completion of their MMRP; and 3) 12 months after completing the MMRP (n = 227). During the FU-12, the patients also retrospectively reported their global impressions of any changes in their perception of pain and their ability to handle their life situation in general.ResultsSignificant improvements were found for pain, psychological symptoms, activity/participation, health, and quality of life aspects with low/medium strong effects.A general pattern was observed from the analyses of the changes from baseline to FU-12; the largest improvements in outcomes were significantly associated with poor situations according to their respective baseline scores. Although significant regressors of the investigated outcomes were found, the significant predictors were weak and explained a minor part of the variation in outcomes (15–25%). At the FU-12, 53.6% of the patients reported that their pain had decreased and 80.1% reported that their life situation in general had improved. These improvements were associated with high education, low pain intensity, high health level, and work importance (only pain perception). The explained variations were low (9–11%).ConclusionsRepresenting patients in real-world clinical settings, this study confirmed systematic reviews that outcomes of MMRP are associated with broad positive effects. A mix of background and baseline variables influenced the outcomes investigated, but the explained variations in outcomes were low. There is still a need to develop standardized and relatively simple outcomes that can be used to evaluate MMRP in trials, in clinical evaluations at group level, and for individual patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1346-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Fourteen-month-old infants were presented with static images of happy, neutral, and fearful emotional facial expressions in an eye-tracking paradigm. The emotions were expressed by the infant's own parents as well as a male and female stranger (parents of another participating infant). Rather than measuring the duration of gaze in particular areas of interest, we measured number of fixations, distribution of fixations, and pupil diameter to evaluate global scanning patterns and reactions to emotional content. The three measures were differentially sensitive to differences in parental leave, emotional expression, and face familiarity. Infants scanned and processed differently happy, neutral, and fearful faces. In addition, infants cared for by both father and mother (divided parental leave) distributed their gaze more across faces than did Correspondence should be sent to

In laboratory studies of social referencing, infants as young as 12 months have been reported to prefer looking at the experimenter over the caregiver for clarifying information. From an expertise perspective, such behavior could be interpreted as if the infant seeks information from others and can discriminate between persons who have or do not have relevant information to provide in the laboratory. If this is the case, higher order cognitive capacities might be involved in infant selectivity in looking in social referencing situations. However, it has also been proposed that associative learning processes might account for infant preferences in such studies. To examine whether an expertise perspective or if more basic learning processes best explain infant selectivity in looking, 40 12‐month‐old infants were assigned to 1 of 2 comparable conditions. The experimenter versus the caregiver presented an ambiguous toy and delivered positive information about the toy. The infants preferred to look at the experimenter and they regulated their behavior more in accordance with information coming from the experimenter. Thus, an associative learning account cannot explain infant preferences in looking. The results are discussed in terms of an expertise perspective.

The aim of the study was to clarify the meaning of infant looking behaviour when the infant is confronted with an ambiguous situation in order to disentangle the two processes social referencing and attachment. Ninety-six 12-month-olds, presented with an ambiguous or an unambiguous toy, were assigned to one of four conditions; mother inattentive, mother conveyed positive information, and mother conveyed negative information about the ambiguous toy. In the fourth condition (control condition), an unambiguous toy was presented (mother inattentive). The ambiguous situation elicited more referencing looks than the unambiguous situation. During the presentation of the ambiguous toy, infants with inattentive mothers referenced the experimenter more than infants whose mothers provided guidance. In the following free-play situation, infants in the inattentive group referenced mother to a higher degree than did the other infants. They played less with the toy than infants who had received positive information and infants in the control group, and were less eager to explore the surroundings than infants in the other three groups. When mother turned attentive the infants ceased referencing her and showed an interest in exploring.