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). 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. 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. 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. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

中文翻译：

---

工作场所性别平等干预措施：范围界定审查

各种研究表明工作场所环境中存在性别差异，并且需要进一步干预。本研究确定并检验了来自随机对照试验 (RCT) 的证据，这些试验涉及检查工作场所或志愿者环境中性别平等的干预措施。另一个目的是确定干预措施是否考虑了性别和其他变量的交叉，包括 PROGRESS-Plus 公平变量（例如种族/民族）。使用 JBI 指南进行范围界定审查。自成立至 2022 年 5 月 9 日，文献在 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Web of Science、ERIC、Index to Legal Journals and Books、PAIS Index、Policy Index File 和 Canadian Business & Current Studies Database 中进行检索，检索结果更新于 2022 年 10 月 17 日检索。使用系统评价和荟萃分析扩展至范围界定评价的首选报告项目 (PRISMA-ScR)、研究中的性别和性别平等 (SAGER) 指南、加强交叉性理论在研究中的整合来报告结果。健康不平等分析 (SIITHIA) 清单和患者和公众参与报告指南 (GRIPP) 第 2 版清单。所有就业或志愿者部门的设置都包括在内。所包含的干预措施旨在促进工作场所性别平等，目标是：(a) 个人、(b) 组织或 (c) 系统。任何比较者都有资格。结果指标包括任何与性别平等相关的结果，无论是衡量干预措施的有效性（如纳入的研究所定义）还是实施情况。数据分析本质上是描述性的。正如 JBI 范围界定审查指南中建议的那样，仅进行高级内容分析来对干预措施进行分类，并使用之前发布的框架进行报告。我们筛选了 8855 条引用、803 份灰色文献来源和 663 篇全文文章，得出 24 项独特的随机对照试验和一份符合纳入标准的配套报告。大多数研究（91.7%）未能报告他们如何确定性别或社会性别。 24 项研究中的 23 项 (95.8%) 报告了至少一个 PROGRESS-Plus 变量：通常是性别或性别或职业。两项随机对照试验 (8.3%) 确定了非二元性别认同。没有一项随机对照试验报告性别与其他特征（例如残疾、年龄等）之间的关系。我们确定了 24 项促进工作场所性别平等的干预措施，并对其进行了评估并分为以下一个或多个主题：(i) 量化性别影响； (ii) 行为或系统变化； (iii) 职业灵活性； (iv) 提高知名度、认可度和代表性； (v) 创造发展、指导和赞助的机会； (vi) 财政支持。在这些干预措施中，20/24 (83.3%) 的主要结果（例如，提高学术生产力、增强自尊）在不同的结果中具有积极的结论陈述。关于促进工作场所性别平等的干预措施的文献很少。虽然一些干预措施在各种结果上得出了积极的结论，但需要考虑特定背景和文化的标准化结果衡量标准。很少有 PROGRESS-Plus 项目被报道。非二元性别认同和与交叉性相关的问题没有得到充分考虑。未来的研究应该提供性别和性别的一致和当代的定义。开放科学框架 https://osf.io/x8yae 。