Browsing by Author "Witteman, Holly O."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review
    (2024-04-05) Tricco, Andrea C.; Parker, Amanda; Khan, Paul A.; Nincic, Vera; Robson, Reid; MacDonald, Heather; Warren, Rachel; Cleary, Olga; Zibrowski, Elaine; Baxter, Nancy; Burns, Karen E. A.; Coyle, Doug; Ndjaboue, Ruth; Clark, Jocalyn P.; Langlois, Etienne V.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Witteman, Holly O.; Graham, Ian D.; El-Adhami, Wafa; Skidmore, Becky; Légaré, France; Curran, Janet; Hawker, Gillian; Watt, Jennifer; Bourgeault, Ivy L.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Lawford, Karen; Aiken, Alice; McCabe, Christopher; Shepperd, Sasha; Pattani, Reena; Leon, Natalie; Lundine, Jamie; Adisso, Évèhouénou L.; Ono, Santa; Rabeneck, Linda; Straus, Sharon E.
    Abstract Background Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). Methods Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. Results We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. Conclusions There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The co-development of a linguistic and culturally tailored tele-retinopathy screening intervention for immigrants living with diabetes from China and African-Caribbean countries in Ottawa, Canada
    (2023-03-29) Umaefulam, Valerie; Wilson, Mackenzie; Boucher, Marie C.; Brent, Michael H.; Dogba, Maman J.; Drescher, Olivia; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.; Ivers, Noah M.; Lawrenson, John G.; Lorencatto, Fabiana; Maberley, David; McCleary, Nicola; McHugh, Sheena; Sutakovic, Olivera; Thavorn, Kednapa; Witteman, Holly O.; Yu, Catherine; Cheng, Hao; Han, Wei; Hong, Yu; Idrissa, Balkissa; Leech, Tina; Malette, Joffré; Mongeon, Isabelle; Mugisho, Zawadi; Nguebou, Marlyse M.; Pabla, Sara; Rahman, Siffan; Samandoulougou, Azaratou; Visram, Hasina; You, Richard; Zhao, Junqiang; Presseau, Justin
    Abstract Background Diabetic retinopathy is a sight-threatening ocular complication of diabetes. Screening is an effective way to reduce severe complications, but screening attendance rates are often low, particularly for newcomers and immigrants to Canada and people from cultural and linguistic minority groups. Building on previous work, in partnership with patient and health system stakeholders, we co-developed a linguistically and culturally tailored tele-retinopathy screening intervention for people living with diabetes who recently immigrated to Canada from either China or African-Caribbean countries. Methods Following an environmental scan of diabetes eye care pathways in Ottawa, we conducted co-development workshops using a nominal group technique to create and prioritize personas of individuals requiring screening and identify barriers to screening that each persona may face. Next, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to categorize the barriers/enablers and then mapped these categories to potential evidence-informed behaviour change techniques. Finally with these techniques in mind, participants prioritized strategies and channels of delivery, developed intervention content, and clarified actions required by different actors to overcome anticipated intervention delivery barriers. Results We carried out iterative co-development workshops with Mandarin and French-speaking individuals living with diabetes (i.e., patients in the community) who immigrated to Canada from China and African-Caribbean countries (n = 13), patient partners (n = 7), and health system partners (n = 6) recruited from community health centres in Ottawa. Patients in the community co-development workshops were conducted in Mandarin or French. Together, we prioritized five barriers to attending diabetic retinopathy screening: language (TDF Domains: skills, social influences), retinopathy familiarity (knowledge, beliefs about consequences), physician barriers regarding communication for screening (social influences), lack of publicity about screening (knowledge, environmental context and resources), and fitting screening around other activities (environmental context and resources). The resulting intervention included the following behaviour change techniques to address prioritized local barriers: information about health consequence, providing instructions on how to attend screening, prompts/cues, adding objects to the environment, social support, and restructuring the social environment. Operationalized delivery channels incorporated language support, pre-booking screening and sending reminders, social support via social media and community champions, and providing using flyers and videos as delivery channels. Conclusion Working with intervention users and stakeholders, we co-developed a culturally and linguistically relevant tele-retinopathy intervention to address barriers to attending diabetic retinopathy screening and increase uptake among two under-served groups.