Integrating sex and gender into biomedical research requires policy and culture change.

Most biomedical, health and care research does not adequately account for sex and gender dimensions of health and illness. Overlooking and disregarding the influence of sex and gender in research reduces scientific rigour and reproducibility, which leads to less effective treatments and worse health outcomes for all, particularly women and sex and gender diverse people. Historically, there has been minimal sex and gender policy innovation in UK medical research. To address this, stakeholders from across the UK research sector have been collaborating since spring 2023 to co-design a sex and gender policy framework to be implemented by research funders, as part of the MESSAGE (Medical Science Sex and Gender Equity) project. In the first Policy Lab, held in London in May 2023, 50 participants, including representatives from funding organisations, medical journals, regulators, clinicians, academics and people with lived experience, identified two key priorities for future action: 1) A whole system approach to policy change, and 2) Technical capacity-building and wider culture change efforts. In pursuing these priorities and collaborating cross-sectorally, UK stakeholders are engaged in an internationally innovative approach aimed at realising sustainable and impactful sex and gender policy change. Drawing on MESSAGE Policy Lab discussions, we set out key actions needed for the UK research sector to embed meaningful accounting for sex and gender as a new norm for research practice.

Frailty and socioeconomic position: A systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Frailty, an age-related state of reduced physiological reserve, is often associated with lower socio-economic position (SEP). This systematic review synthesised observational studies assessing (i) the association between SEP and frailty prevalence; (ii) how changes in frailty status over time vary by SEP; and (iii) whether the association between frailty and clinical outcomes is modified by SEP. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases from 2001 to 2023. We included observational studies measuring early-, mid-, and late-life indicators of SEP (education, income, wealth, housing, occupation, and area-based measures of multiple deprivation) and frailty (assessed using any validated measure). Screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. Findings were synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included 383 studies reporting findings from 265 independent samples/cohorts across 64 countries. Lower SEP was associated with higher frailty prevalence across all indicators (childhood deprivation 7/8 studies, education 227/248, occupation 28/32, housing 8/9, income 98/108, wealth 39/44 and area-based deprivation 32/34). Lower SEP was also associated with higher frailty incidence (27/30), with greater odds of transitioning towards a more severe frailty state (35/43), lower odds of frailty reversion (7/11), and (in some studies) with more rapid accumulation of deficits (7/15). The relationship between frailty and mortality was not modified by SEP. INTERPRETATION: Preventative measures across multiple levels of individual and structural inequality are likely to be required to reduce the rising levels of frailty. Resourcing of interventions and services to support people living with frailty should be proportionate to needs in the population to avoid widening existing health inequalities.

An observational analysis of frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation and their association with socioeconomic deprivation, hospitalisation and mortality among UK Biobank participants.

Frailty, social isolation, and loneliness have individually been associated with adverse health outcomes. This study examines how frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation is associated with socioeconomic deprivation and with all-cause mortality and hospitalisation rate in a middle-aged and older population. Baseline data from 461,047 UK Biobank participants (aged 37-73) were used to assess frailty (frailty phenotype), social isolation, and loneliness. Weibull models assessed the association between frailty in combination with loneliness or social isolation and all-cause mortality adjusted for age/sex/smoking/alcohol/socioeconomic-status and number of long-term conditions. Negative binomial regression models assessed hospitalisation rate. Frailty prevalence was 3.38%, loneliness 4.75% and social isolation 9.04%. Frailty was present across all ages and increased with age. Loneliness and social isolation were more common in younger participants compared to older. Co-occurrence of frailty and loneliness or social isolation was most common in participants with high socioeconomic deprivation. Frailty was associated with increased mortality and hospitalisation regardless of social isolation/loneliness. Hazard ratios for mortality were 2.47 (2.27-2.69) with social isolation and 2.17 (2.05-2.29) without social isolation, 2.14 (1.92-2.38) with loneliness and 2.16 (2.05-2.27) without loneliness. Loneliness and social isolation were associated with mortality and hospitalisation in robust participants, but this was attenuated in the context of frailty. Frailty and loneliness/social isolation affect individuals across a wide age spectrum and disproportionately co-occur in areas of high deprivation. All were associated with adverse outcomes, but the association between loneliness and social isolation and adverse outcomes was attenuated in the context of frailty. Future interventions should target people living with frailty or loneliness/social isolation, regardless of age.

The relationship between frailty and social vulnerability: a systematic review.

Both frailty (reduced physiological reserve) and social vulnerability (scarcity of adequate social connections, support, or interaction) become more common as people age and are associated with adverse consequences. Analyses of the relationships between these constructs can be limited by the wide range of measures used to assess them. In this systematic review, we synthesised 130 observational studies assessing the association between frailty and social vulnerability, the bidirectional longitudinal relationships between constructs, and their joint associations with adverse health outcomes. Frailty, across assessment type, was associated with increased loneliness and social isolation, perceived inadequacy of social support, and reduced social participation. Each of these social vulnerability components was also associated with more rapid progression of frailty and lower odds of improvement compared with the absence of that social vulnerability component (eg, more rapid frailty progression in people with social isolation vs those who were not socially isolated). Combinations of frailty and social vulnerability were associated with increased mortality, decline in physical function, and cognitive impairment. Clinical and public health measures targeting frailty or social vulnerability should, therefore, account for both frailty and social vulnerability.

'I wouldn't know what to do with the breasts': the impact of patient gender on medical student confidence and comfort in clinical skills.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has found a relationship between students' gender and attitudes surrounding peer physical examination, but relationship between patient gender and confidence/comfort is less clear. We explored whether patient gender affects medical students' levels of confidence and comfort in clinical examination skills. METHODS: An electronic survey and focus groups were conducted with medical students from one UK institution. Students reported levels of confidence/comfort when carrying out clinical examinations on men/women. An inductive thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of a total of 1500 students provided with the opportunity to participate, ninety (6%) responded. For cardiovascular and respiratory examinations, confidence/comfort were higher when examining male-presenting patients. The opposite was true for mental state examinations. Barriers to confidence/comfort included perceiving males as a norm, difficulty navigating breasts, tutors' internalised gendered attitudes and a wider sociocultural issue. Facilitators of confidence/comfort included students relating to patients, embodying a professional role, gender blindness, and authentic clinical environments. Fewer than 20% (n = 18) of students felt they had enough opportunity to practice clinical skills on women, versus 90% (n = 82) on men. CONCLUSION: Our study identified an area where students' confidence and comfort in clinical examinations could be enhanced within medical education. Changes were implemented in the institution under study's vocational skills teaching, which is rooted in general practice. Information on gender and clinical skills was provided within course handbooks, time was scheduled to discuss gender and clinical skills in small group settings, and equitable gender representation was ensured in clinical assessment.