Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31879212›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Global health2020

Characteristics of successful programmes targeting gender inequality and restrictive gender norms for the health and wellbeing of children, adolescents, and young adults: a systematic review.

Jessica K Levy, Gary L Darmstadt, Caitlin Ashby, Mary Quandt, Erika Halsey, Aishwarya Nagar, Margaret E Greene

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

108 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jessica K LevyBrown School at Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA; Iris Group, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: jessicaklevy@wustl.edu.
Gary L DarmstadtDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Caitlin AshbyBrown School at Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.
Mary QuandtBrown School at Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.
Erika HalseyBrown School at Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.
Aishwarya NagarBrown School at Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA; Iris Group, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Margaret E GreeneIris Group, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; GreeneWorks, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of the Sustainable Development Goals and the shifting global burden of disease, this systematic review analyses the evidence from rigorously evaluated programmes that seek to transform the gendered social norms undermining the health and wellbeing of children, adolescents, and young adults. The aim of this study was threefold: to describe the landscape of gender-transformative programmes that attempt to influence health-related outcomes; to identify mechanisms through which successful programmes work; and to highlight where gaps might exist in implementation and evaluation.

methodsWe systematically reviewed rigorous evaluations published between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 1, 2018 of programmes that sought to decrease gender inequalities and transform restrictive gender norms to improve the health and wellbeing of 0-24 year olds. We included rigorously evaluated health programmes that met the Interagency Gender Working Group definition of gender-transformative programming, regardless of where in the world they were implemented and what area of health they focused on.

findingsAmong 22 993 articles identified by our search, 61 evaluations of 59 programmes met review criteria. Programmes were concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa (25 [42%]), south Asia (13 [22%]), and North America (13 [22%]) and mainly measured health indicators related to reproductive health (29 [48%]), violence (26 [43%]), or HIV (18 [30%]). Programmes most frequently focused on improving the individual power of the beneficiaries, rather than working on broader systems of inequality. 45 (74%) of the evaluations measured significant improvements in health-related and gender-related indicators; however, only ten (16%) showed evidence of, or potential for, broader norm change. These ten programmes worked with sectors beyond health, included multiple stakeholders, implemented diversified strategies, and fostered critical awareness and participation among affected community members.

interpretationThis review can accelerate efforts to improve global health by leading to more strategic investment in programmes that promote gender equality and target restrictive gender norms among young people. Such programmes can lead to a lifetime of improved health and wellbeing by challenging not only attitudes and behaviours related to gender at an early age, but also the gendered systems that surround them.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsAdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaAsiaChildChild, PreschoolDelivery of Health CareFemaleGlobal HealthGuidelines as TopicHealth PromotionHumansInfantMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31879212
PMCPMC7025324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.