Gender inequalities exist in work life, but little is known about their presence in relation to factors examined in occupation health settings. The aim of this study was to identify and summarize the working and employment conditions described as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health in studies related to occupational health published between 1999 and 2010. A systematic literature review was undertaken of studies available in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sociological Abstracts, LILACS, EconLit and CINAHL between 1999 and 2010. Epidemiologic studies were selected by applying a set of inclusion criteria to the title, abstract, and complete text. The quality of the studies was also assessed. Selected studies were qualitatively analysed, resulting in a compilation of all differences between women and men in the prevalence of exposure to working and employment conditions and work-related health problems as outcomes. Most of the 30 studies included were conducted in Europe (n=19) and had a cross-sectional design (n=24). The most common topic analysed was related to the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards (n=8). Employed women had more job insecurity, lower control, worse contractual working conditions and poorer self-perceived physical and mental health than men did. Conversely, employed men had a higher degree of physically demanding work, lower support, higher levels of effort-reward imbalance, higher job status, were more exposed to noise and worked longer hours than women did. This systematic review has identified a set of working and employment conditions as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health from the occupational health literature. These results may be useful to policy makers seeking to reduce gender inequalities in occupational health, and to researchers wishing to analyse these determinants in greater depth.

BACKGROUND: Managing fibromyalgia is a challenge for both health care systems and the professionals caring for these patients, due, in part, to the fact that the etiology of this disease is unknown, its symptoms are not specific and there is no standardized treatment.OBJECTIVE: The present study examines three aspects of fibromyalgia management, namely diagnostic approach, therapeutic management and the health professional‐patient relationship, to explore specific areas of the health care process that professionals and patients may consider unsatisfactory.METHODS: A qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with 12 fibromyalgia patients and nine health professionals was performed.RESULTS: The most commonly recurring theme was the dissatisfaction of both patients and professionals with the management process as a whole. Both groups expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in reaching a diagnosis and obtaining effective treatment. Patients reported the need for greater moral support from professionals, whereas the latter often felt frustrated and of little help to patients. Patients and professionals agreed on one point: the uncertainty surrounding the management of fibromyalgia and, especially, its etiology.CONCLUSION: The present study contributes to a better understanding regarding why current management of fibromyalgia is neither effective nor satisfactory. It also provides insight into how health professionals can support fibromyalgia patients to achieve beneficial results. Health care services should offer greater support for these patients in the form of specific resources such as fibromyalgia clinics and health professionals with increased awareness of the disease.

Objective. To synthesise the scientific evidence concerning barriers to health care access faced by migrants. We sought to critically analyse this evidence with a view to guiding policies. Design. A systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic and scoping reviews which quantitatively or qualitatively analysed data from primary studies. The main variables analysed were structural and contextual barriers (health system organisation) as well as individual (patients and providers). The quality of evidence from the systematic reviews was critically appraised. From 2674 reviews, 79 were retained for further scrutiny, and finally 9 met the inclusion criteria. Results. The structural barriers identified were the lack of health insurance and the high cost of drugs (non-universal health system) and organisational aspects of health system (social insurance system and national health system). The individual barriers were linguistic and cultural. None of the reviews provided a quality appraisal of the studies. Conclusions. Barriers to health care for migrants range from entitlement in non-universal health systems to accessibility in universal ones, and determinants of access to the respective health services should be analysed within the corresponding national context. Generate social and institutional changes that eliminate barriers to access to health services is essential to ensure health for all.

The design and analysis of research may cause systematic gender dependent errors to be produced in results because of gender insensitivity or androcentrism. Gender bias in research could be defined as a systematically erroneous gender dependent approach related to social construct, which incorrectly regards women and men as similar/different. Most gender bias can be found in the context of discovery (development of hypotheses), but it has also been found in the context of justification (methodological process), which must be improved. In fact, one of the main effects of gender bias in research is partial or incorrect knowledge in the results, which are systematically different from the real values. This paper discusses some forms of conceptual and methodological bias that may affect women’s health. It proposes a framework to analyse gender bias in the design and analysis of research carried out on women’s and men’s health problems, and on specific women’s health issues. Using examples, the framework aims to show the different theoretical perspectives in a social or clinical research context where forms of selection, measurement and confounding bias are produced as a result of gender insensitivity. Finally, this paper underlines the importance of re-examining results so that they may be reinterpreted to produce new gender based knowledge.