Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33549116›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Unpacking power dynamics in research and evaluation on social accountability for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Marta Schaaf, Suzanne Cant, Joanna Cordero, Sana Contractor, Etobssie Wako, Cicely Marston

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Marta SchaafIndependent Consultant, 357 Sixth Ave., NY, 11215, Brooklyn, USA. martaschaafconsult@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7616-5966
Suzanne CantWorld Vision International, 39 Garden St, Blairgowrie, Victoria, 3942, Australia.
Joanna CorderoDevelopment and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sana ContractorCOPASAH Sexual and Reproductive Rights Hub, CHSJ, Basement of Young Women's Hostel No 2, Avenue 21, G block, Saket, New Delhi, 110017, India.
Etobssie WakoCARE USA, 151 Ellis Street NE, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Cicely MarstonFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
CARE USA · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSimulConsult · USVision Australia · AUWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, social accountability for health has coalesced into a distinct field of research and practice. Whether explicitly stated or not, changed power relations are at the heart of what social accountability practitioners seek, particularly in the context of sexual and reproductive health. Yet, evaluations of social accountability programs frequently fail to assess important power dynamics. In this commentary, we argue that we must include an examination of power in research and evaluation of social accountability in sexual and reproductive health, and suggest ways to do this. The authors are part of a community of practice on measuring social accountability and health outcomes. We share key lessons from our efforts to conduct power sensitive research using different approaches and methods.First, participatory research and evaluation approaches create space for program participants to engage actively in evaluations by defining success. Participation is also one of the key elements of feminist evaluation, which centers power relations rooted in gender. Participatory approaches can strengthen 'traditional' health evaluation approaches by ensuring that the changes assessed are meaningful to communities.Fields from outside health offer approaches that help to describe and assess changes in power dynamics. For example, realist evaluation analyses the causal processes, or mechanisms, grounded in the interactions between social, political and other structures and human agency; programs try to influence these structures and/or human agency. Process tracing requires describing the mechanisms underlying change in power dymanics in a very detailed way, promoting insight into how changes in power relationships are related to the broader program.Finally, case aggregation and comparison entail the aggregation of data from multiple cases to refine theories about when and how programs work. Case aggregation can allow for nuanced attention to context while still producing lessons that are applicable to inform programming more broadly.We hope this brief discussion encourages other researchers and evaluators to share experiences of analysing power relations as part of evaluation of social accountability interventions for sexual and reproductive health so that together, we improve methodology in this crucial area.

Indexed as

Reproductive HealthReproductive RightsRight to HealthSexual HealthSocial ResponsibilityHumansPower, PsychologicalResearch PersonnelSexual BehaviorMeasurementPowerResearchSexual and reproductive health and rightsSocial accountability

Identifiers

PMID33549116
PMCPMC7866686
OpenAlexW3126765698

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.