Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32337081›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2020

Prioritising gender, equity, and human rights in a GRADE-based framework to inform future research on self care for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Nandi Siegfried, Manjulaa Narasimhan, Carmen H Logie, Rebekah Thomas, Laura Ferguson, Kevin Moody, Michelle Remme

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Nandi SiegfriedIndependent Clinical Epidemiologist, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4081-1698
Manjulaa NarasimhanDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, including UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carmen H LogieFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rebekah ThomasGuideline Review Committee Secretariat (Science Division), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Laura FergusonInstitute on Inequalities in Global Health, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kevin MoodyIndependent Consultant, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michelle RemmeInternational Institute for Global Health, United Nations University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
World Health Organization · CHUnited Nations University-International Institute for Global Health · MYUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In January 2019, the WHO reviewed evidence to develop global recommendations on self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Identification of research gaps is part of the WHO guidelines development process, but reliable methods to do so are currently lacking with gender, equity and human rights (GER) infrequently prioritised. Methods: We expanded a prior framework based on Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to include GER. The revised framework is applied systematically during the formulation of research questions and comprises: (1) assessment of the GRADE strength and quality rating of recommendations; (2) mandatory inclusion of research questions identified from a global stakeholder survey; and (3) selection of the GER standards and principles most relevant to the question through discussion and consensus. For each question, we articulated: (1) the most appropriate and robust study design; (2) an alternative pragmatic design if the ideal design was not feasible; and (3) the methodological challenges facing researchers through identifying potential biases. Results: We identified 39 research questions, 7 overarching research approaches and 13 discrete feasible study designs. Availability and accessibility were most frequently identified as the GER standards and principles to consider when planning studies, followed by privacy and confidentiality. Selection and detection bias were the primary methodological challenges across mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative studies. A lack of generalisability potentially limits the use of study results with non-participation in research potentially highest in more vulnerable populations. Conclusion: A framework based on GRADE that includes stakeholders' values and identification of core GER standards and principles provides a practical, systematic approach to identifying research questions from a WHO guideline. Clear guidance for future studies will contribute to an anticipated 'living guidelines' approach within WHO. Foregrounding GER as a separate component of the framework is innovative but further elaboration to operationalise appropriate indicators for SRHR self-care interventions is required.

Indexed as

Right to HealthSelf CareHumansReproductive Healthdiseasesdisordersepidemiologyinfectionsinjuriespublic healthstudy design

Identifiers

PMID32337081
PMCPMC7170423
OpenAlexW3014916285

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.