Background Both women's and men's occupational health problems merit scientific attention. Researchers need to consider the effect of gender on how occupational health issues are experienced, expressed, defined, and addressed. More serious consideration of gender-related factors will help identify risk factors for both women and men. Methods The authors, who come from a number of disciplines (ergonomics, epidemiology, public health, social medicine, community psychology, economics, sociology) pooled their critiques in order to arrive at the most common and significant problems faced by occupational health researchers who wish to consider gender appropriately. Results This paper describes some ways that gender can be and has been handled in studies of occupational health, as well as some of the consequences. The paper also suggests specific research practices that avoid errors. Obstacles to gender-sensitive practices are considered. Conclusions Although gender-sensitive practices may be difficult to operationalize in some cases, they enrich the scientific quality of research and should lead to better data and ultimately to well-targeted prevention programs. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43:618-629, 2003. KEY WORDS: gender; sex; women; men; research methodology; epidemiology; ergonomics; confounding; effect modification; gender-based analysis INTRODUCTIONBoth women's and men's occupational health merit scientific attention. In the United States, women constitute 46% of the paid workforce [United States Department of Labor, 2002], and have one third of compensated occupational health and safety problems, resulting in 81% of claims on a per hour basis [McDiarmid and Gucer, 2001]. These injuries entail direct and indirect costs to workers and employers, as well as human suffering [deCarteret, 1994]. Therefore, appropriately including sex and gender is increasingly relevant for occupational health research. Although researchers are interested in developing studies involving these variables, they may not know exactly how to do this. This article supplies some suggestions. Many of the arguments presented here will apply to other sources of socially defined diversity such as age, race/ ethnicity, and social class [Krieger et al., 1993;Kilbom et al., 1997;Wegman, 1999; Chaturvedi, 2001]. Each of these factors has its own interactions with the work environment and health effects, but their discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.We have identified three types of problems in the way occupational health research has dealt with sex and gender. First, hazards in women's work have been underestimated [Rosenstock and Lee, 2000;Bäckman and Edling, 2001;London et al., 2002;McDiarmid and Gucer, 2001]. Women have been less often studied by occupational health scientists [Zahm et al., 1994;Messing, 1998a;Niedhammer et al., 2000]. Under-reporting and under-compensation, recognized problems in occupational health [Biddle et al., 1998;Davis et al., 2001;Harber et al., 2001], may be more of a problem for women [Lippel and Demers, 1996;Gluck and O...

A number of researchers have pointed out that less is known about occupational determinants of health in women than in men. The authors examine inventories of ongoing Canadian research and of recent scientific publications in order to identify trends in the approaches used to study women's occupational health (WOH). We also consider conceptual issues in the treatment of the sex and gender of subjects. We observe that women have been the subject of relatively few investigations of occupational health in the natural or biomedical sciences and that studies of WOH have concentrated on the health care professions and on psychosocial stressors, with a deficit in toxicological and physiological studies. We use recent studies of mercury exposure in chloralkali process plants and of musculoskeletal disorders among office workers to provide specific examples of problems in conceptualizing WOH. We propose that WOH be studied more often, especially by researchers in the natural and biomedical sciences, and that such studies include both women and men, where possible, and consider the complex relationships of gender and sex to the pathways involved. More interdisciplinary research would facilitate this process, since social researchers have tended to focus more on gender/sex issues. Our findings demonstrate that it is necessary to explore the implications of using sex routinely as an explanatory variable in occupational health research and to increase emphasis on the mechanisms involved in any sex or gender differences sought or found. From an equity perspective, it is also important to situate biological sex differences so as to prevent them from being used erroneously to justify job segregation or inequitable health promotion measures.

In recent decades there has been an increasing recognition of the need to account for sex and gender in biology and medicine, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of biological phenomena and to address gaps in medical knowledge that have arisen due to a generally masculine bias in research. We have noted that as basic experimental biomedical researchers, we face unique challenges to the incorporation of sex and gender in our work, and that these have remained largely unarticulated, misunderstood, and unaddressed in the literature. Here, we describe some of the specific challenges to the incorporation of sex and gender considerations in research involving cell cultures and laboratory animals. In our view, the mainstreaming of sex and gender considerations in basic biomedical research depends on an approach that will allow scientists to address these issues in ways that do not undermine our ability to pursue our fundamental scientific interests. To that end, we suggest a number of strategies that allow basic experimental researchers to feasibly and meaningfully take sex and gender into account in their work.

Freedom to sit at work may prevent lower-extremity pain. The effects of specific sitting and standing postures on cartilage, muscle, and the cardiovascular system may help explain discomfort in the lower extremities.

A relationship between low back pain (LBP) and prolonged standing or prolonged sitting at work has not been clearly shown, despite its biological plausibility. Because sitting and standing postures vary as to duration and freedom to alternate postures, and standing postures vary as to mobility, associations between specific working postures and LBP were explored using multiple logistic regression. Associations between work factors and self-reported LBP during the previous 12 months that interfered with usual activities were examined among 4493 standing workers and 3237 sitting workers interviewed in the 1998 Quebec Health and Social Survey; 24.5% reported significant LBP. Since the same conditions can correspond to different physiological demands for sitting compared with standing workers, analyses were performed separately for the two groups. Standing without freedom to sit was associated with LBP. Different occupational physical and psychosocial factors were associated with LBP in sitting compared with standing populations.