Catalysing change in health and medical research policy: an Australian case study of deliberative democracy to reform sex and gender policy recommendations

Revising public health policy based on new data does not happen automatically. This is acutely relevant to the now undeniable evidence that many diseases develop differently between the sexes and may also be affected by gender. Current health and medical practices across the globe generally fail to cater for sex and gender effects in common diseases. Inadequate policy frameworks to guide the comprehensive inclusion of sex and gender in research jeopardises scientific rigour and ultimately the practices they underpin. To ensure that Australian health and medical research is fit-for-purpose, we realised that potent initiatives would be necessary to expedite strategic reframing of thought and behaviour. Here we report on our innovative engagement of end-users for democratic self-determined policy reform to guide health and medical research, based on robust data. We draw upon our specific study to outline seven key steps that can be adopted to accelerate effective change, across a breadth of evidence-based initiatives to reform health policies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2025-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1522213
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Catalysing change in health and medical research policy: an Australian case study of deliberative democracy to reform sex and gender policy recommendations

Séverine Lamon, Steven Philpot, Rachel Huxley, Keziah Bennett‐Brook et al.
1 citations
Frontiers in Public Health
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
1.88
article

Catalysing change in health and medical research policy: an Australian case study of deliberative democracy to reform sex and gender policy recommendations

Séverine Lamon, Steven Philpot, Rachel Huxley, Keziah Bennett‐Brook, Marina H. Yakou, Ken C. Pang, Zoe Wainer, Louise Chappell, Lyn Carson, Mark Woodward, Moritz F. Eissmann, Christine Jenkins, James R. Fazio, Michael Büchert, Jane E. Bourke, Kelly Thompson, Bronwyn M. Graham, Kerryn Drysdale, Brian Gregory George Oliver, Bridget Haire, Mitchell A. Holder, Cheryl E. Carcel, Ken Knight, Sue Haupt, Jéssica Duarte, Robyn Norton, Lily Halliday, Kyle Redman, Ayan Dasvarma, Thomas F. E. Drake-Brockman, Stephen C. C. Dymock, Laura N. Eadie, Melanie Eckersley-Maslin, Nicole Kleppe, Jonathan Mauclair, Celine Northcott, Tracy A. O'Mara, Tertia D. Purves-Tyson, Jacob Stewart-Olsen, Lauren Ursich, Natalia Vukelic, Saraid Billiards, Scott Lappan-Newton, Karin R. Aubrey, Xander Bickendorf
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Revising public health policy based on new data does not happen automatically. This is acutely relevant to the now undeniable evidence that many diseases develop differently between the sexes and may also be affected by gender. Current health and medical practices across the globe generally fail to cater for sex and gender effects in common diseases. Inadequate policy frameworks to guide the comprehensive inclusion of sex and gender in research jeopardises scientific rigour and ultimately the practices they underpin. To ensure that Australian health and medical research is fit-for-purpose, we realised that potent initiatives would be necessary to expedite strategic reframing of thought and behaviour. Here we report on our innovative engagement of end-users for democratic self-determined policy reform to guide health and medical research, based on robust data. We draw upon our specific study to outline seven key steps that can be adopted to accelerate effective change, across a breadth of evidence-based initiatives to reform health policies.

Frontiers in Public HealthVol. 12
University of Technology Sydney (AU), The University of Sydney (AU), Deakin University (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), The Kids Research Institute Australia (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU), The George Institute for Global Health (GB), La Trobe University (AU), QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU), Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (AU), Australian Human Rights Commission (AU), Princess Margaret Hospital for Children (AU), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), Woolcock Institute of Medical Research (AU), Government of Western Australia Department of Health (AU), Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), Australian Orthopaedic Association (AU), Australian Wool Innovation (Australia) (AU), The George Institute for Global Health (AU), Children's Cancer Institute Australia (AU), South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (AU), Westmead Institute for Medical Research (AU), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre (AU), Imperial College London (GB), Monash University (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU), Neuroscience Research Australia (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.