From individual coping strategies to illness codification: the reflection of gender in social science research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)

Abstract

IntroductionEmerging fields such as environmental health have been challenged, in recent years, to answer the growing methodological calls for a finer integration of sex and gender in health-related research and policy-making.MethodsThrough a descriptive examination of 25 peer-reviewed social science papers published between 1996 and 2011, we explore, by examining methodological designs and theoretical standpoints, how the social sciences have integrated gender sensitivity in empirical work on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS). MCS is a “diagnosis” associated with sensitivities to chronic and low-dose chemical exposures, which remains contested in both the medical and institutional arenas, and is reported to disproportionately affect women.ResultsWe highlighted important differences between papers that did integrate a gender lens and those that did not. These included characteristics of the authorship, purposes, theoretical frameworks and methodological designs of the studies. Reviewed papers that integrated gender tended to focus on the gender roles and identity of women suffering from MCS, emphasizing personal strategies of adaptation. More generally, terminological confusions in the use of sex and gender language and concepts, such as a conflation of women and gender, were observed. Although some men were included in most of the study samples reviewed, specific data relating to men was undereported in results and only one paper discussed issues specifically experienced by men suffering from MCS. Papers that overlooked gender dimensions generally addressed more systemic social issues such as the dynamics of expertise and the medical codification of MCS, from more consistently outlined theoretical frameworks. Results highlight the place for a critical, systematic and reflexive problematization of gender and for the development of methodological and theoretical tools on how to integrate gender in research designs when looking at both micro and macro social dimensions of environmental health conditions.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to a discussion on the methodological and policy implications of taking sex and gender into account appropriately in order to contribute to better equity in health, especially where the critical social contexts of definition and medico-legal recognition play a major role such as in the case of MCS.

(In)Visibility Online: The Benefits of Online Patient Forums for People with a Hidden Illness: The Case of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)

“…This aligns with literature reviews that suggest women constitute between 60% and 80% of the chemically sensitive population (Sears 2007). Although there can be a difference between the ways men and women use medically focused support groups (Klemm et al 1998), and between the ways men and women respond to chemical injuries (Nadeau and Lippel 2014), there was no significant difference between how the genders responded in this study.…”

“…Although there can be a difference between the ways men and women use medically focused support groups (Klemm et al. ), and between the ways men and women respond to chemical injuries (Nadeau and Lippel ), there was no significant difference between how the genders responded in this study.…”

Review of the Available Scientific Evidence on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome

“…Therefore, the diagnosis is based on symptoms presented by patients, as there is no laboratory test blood or urine, and no specific complementary examination in order to confirm the diagnosis [46][47][48][49] . The symptoms differ among individuals who have to change their lifestyle to cope with the disease 50,51 .…”

Sex- and gender-sensitive public health research: an analysis of research proposals in a research institute in the Netherlands

“…Often sex and gender are ignored or used interchangeably, gender and sex-gender interactions remain largely unaddressed (e.g. Nadeau and Lippel 2014;Regitz-Zagrosek 2012;Springer, Hankivsky, and Bates 2012), and when data are stratified by sex it is often insufficient to explain variability regarding sex and gender (Mauvais-Jarvis et al 2020). As a result, gender bias in public health research maintains, which results in lower societal relevance and inaccurate conclusions about generalizability (e.g.…”