Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32254002›Full record

ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2020

How gains for SRHR in the UN have remained possible in a changing political climate.

Erin Aylward, Stuart Halford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Erin AylwardPhD Candidate, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9552-0150
Stuart HalfordFormer Director of Geneva Office, Sexual Rights Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As right-wing populist movements make electoral gains around the world, one might expect that resultant policy and legislative reversals against sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) would be mirrored by a similar backlash in United Nations (UN) human rights negotiations. Yet the past five years have seen unprecedented advances for SRHR within the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), treaty bodies, and special procedures. In this article, we provide an overview of SRHR gains and setbacks within the HRC and analyse their broader significance, particularly as socially conservative nation states and non-governmental organisations seek to challenge them. We analyse how states have advanced SRHR in the HRC and examine efforts that states which oppose SRHR have undertaken to limit these advances. In an increasingly hostile political climate, the inter-related legal, technical, and political mechanisms through which human rights are advanced within the UN has helped to mitigate the effects of rapid political reversals. Additionally, the HRC's emphasis on previously agreed language helps dampen significant changes in resolutions on SRHR.

Indexed as

Human RightsInternational CooperationReproductive HealthReproductive RightsRight to HealthClimate ChangeHumansPoliticsSexual BehaviorSexual HealthUnited Nationsbacklashbodily autonomydiplomacyHuman Rights CouncilNGOssexual and reproductive health and rightstransnational advocacytreaty bodiesUnited Nations

Identifiers

PMID32254002
PMCPMC7887946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.