Evidence Hub

Sex and gender reporting in RCTs of internet and mobile-based interventions for depression and anxiety in chronic conditions: A secondary analysis of a systematic review

Shaina Corrick, Emily Johnson, Serena Isley, Ben Vandermeer, Naomi Dolgoy, Jack Bates, Elana Godfrey, Cassidy Soltys et al.

PLOS mental health, 2024

7,691 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Mind-body internet- and mobile-based intervention (IMIs) are gaining traction as scalable and effective strategies to manage mental health symptoms experienced by people living with chronic physical conditions. Sex and gender have implications for mind-body IMI participation, adherence, and efficacy. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the extent and nature of reporting of sex and/or gender in randomized controlled trials retrieved by a primary systematic review of mind-body IMIs assessing depression and anxiety symptoms among adults living with chronic physical conditions. The collected information included whether sex and gender-based analyses were carried out and explored the role of sex and gender on mental health outcomes, attrition, and recruitment rates. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO. A comprehensive search of six electronic databases was completed from database inception to March 2023. Sex and gender terms were summarized according to a standardized, three-point criteria: (1) non-binary use (i.e., > 2 categories used for both sex and gender definitions) (2) use of appropriate categories (i.e., sex = male/female/intersex, gender = man/woman/gender-diverse) and (3) non-interchangeable use of sex or gender terms throughout the citation. The use of sex and gender terms was deemed correct if all three criteria were met. The role of sex and gender on mental health outcomes, attrition and recruitment data were extracted where available. In the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,691 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free