Table 4 |
||||
|
Proposals in which the applicants did not express an intention to consider sex+, subdivided into study type. |
||||
| Intention to consider sex differences |
Expected |
Not expected |
Total no intention |
Number of proposals submitted |
| N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
|
|
|
||||
| Programme Prevention |
69 (66%) |
11 (11%) |
80 (77%) |
104 (100%) |
| Study type |
||||
| basic |
4 |
0 |
4 |
7 |
| applied |
48 |
10 |
59++ |
77 |
| implementation |
13 |
1 |
14 |
15 |
| classification unclear |
3 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
| Programme Innovation |
22 (20%) |
76 (70%) |
98 (90%) |
109 (100%) |
| Study type |
||||
| basic |
15 |
70 |
85 |
94 |
| applied |
6 |
4 |
10 |
11 |
| implementation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| classification unclear |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
+ experts made an assessment by screening the title of a proposal ++ includes one proposal on which the experts were indecisive whether attention to sex differences could have been relevant or not. | ||||
Keuken et al. International Journal for Equity in Health 2007 6:13 doi:10.1186/1475-9276-6-13 |
||||
