Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34385251›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Response strategies for promoting gender equality in public health emergencies: a rapid scoping review.

Janina I Steinert, Caterina Alacevich, Bridget Steele, Julie Hennegan, Alexa R Yakubovich

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Intimate Partner Violence in the COVID-19 Era: A Health, Psychological, Forensic and Legal Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Janina I SteinertTUM Schoool of Governance, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany janina.steinert@tum.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7120-0075
Caterina AlacevichNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Bridget SteeleDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julie HenneganMaternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alexa R YakubovichMAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR HSI-166388
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen existing gender inequities worldwide. A growing body of literature assesses the harmful consequences of public health emergencies (PHEs) for women and girls; however, evidence of what works to alleviate such impacts is limited. To inform viable mitigation strategies, we reviewed the evidence on gender-based interventions implemented in PHEs, including disease outbreaks and natural disasters.

methodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review to identify eligible studies by systematically searching the databases MEDLINE, Global Health and Web of Science with the latest search update on 28 May 2021. We used the Sustainable Development Goals as a guiding framework to identify eligible outcomes of gender (in)equality.

resultsOut of 13 920 records, 16 studies met our eligibility criteria. These included experimental (3), cohort (2), case-control (3) and cross-sectional (9) studies conducted in the context of natural disasters (earthquakes, droughts and storms) or epidemics (Zika, Ebola and COVID-19). Six studies were implemented in Asia, seven in North/Central America and three in Africa. Interventions included economic empowerment programmes (5); health promotion, largely focused on reproductive health (10); and a postearthquake resettlement programme (1). Included studies assessed gender-based outcomes in the domains of sexual and reproductive health, equal opportunities, access to economic resources, violence and health. There was a dearth of evidence for other outcome domains relevant to gender equity such as harmful practices, sanitation and hygiene practices, workplace discrimination and unpaid work. Economic empowerment interventions showed promise in promoting women's and girls' economic and educational opportunities as well as their sexual and reproductive health during PHEs. However, some programme beneficiaries may be at risk of experiencing unintended harms such as an increase in domestic violence. Focused reproductive health promotion may also be an effective strategy for supporting women's sexual and reproductive health, although additional experimental evidence is needed.

conclusionsThis study identified critical evidence gaps to guide future research on approaches to alleviating gender inequities during PHEs. We further highlight that interventions to promote gender equity in PHEs should take into account possible harmful side effects such as increased gender-based violence. REVIEW REGISTRATION: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8HKFD.

Indexed as

COVID-19Zika VirusZika Virus InfectionCross-Sectional StudiesEmergenciesFemaleGender EquityHumansPandemicsPublic HealthCOVID-19health economicshealth policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34385251
PMCPMC8361708

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.