Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34894132›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2022

Using gender analysis matrixes to integrate a gender lens into infectious diseases outbreaks research.

Rosemary Morgan, Sara E Davies, Huiyun Feng, Connie C R Gan, Karen A Grépin, Sophie Harman, Asha Herten-Crabb, Julia Smith, Clare Wenham

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gender differences in the perception of leptospirosis severity, behaviours, andmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Rosemary MorganDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615. North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Sara E DaviesSchool of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7637-2252
Huiyun FengSchool of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia.
Connie C R GanSchool of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia.
Karen A GrépinSchool of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, G/F, Patrick Manson Building (North Wing), 7 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Sophie HarmanSchool of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.
Asha Herten-CrabbDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1251-8109
Julia SmithFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, Room 11300, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Clare WenhamDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5378-3203
Griffith University · AULondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBJohns Hopkins University · USQueen Mary University of London · GBSimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research OV7-170639Gates Foundation INV-017300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence shows that infectious disease outbreaks are not gender-neutral, meaning that women, men and gender minorities are differentially affected. This evidence affirms the need to better incorporate a gender lens into infectious disease outbreaks. Despite this evidence, there has been a historic neglect of gender-based analysis in health, including during health crises. Recognizing the lack of available evidence on gender and pandemics in early 2020 the Gender and COVID-19 project set out to use a gender analysis matrix to conduct rapid, real-time analyses while the pandemic was unfolding to examine the gendered effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This paper reports on what a gender analysis matrix is, how it can be used to systematically conduct a gender analysis, how it was implemented within the study, ways in which the findings from the matrix were applied and built upon, and challenges encountered when using the matrix methodology.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesCOVID-19Disease OutbreaksFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Gendergender analysisinfectious diseases outbreakspandemics

Identifiers

PMID34894132
PMCPMC9347024
OpenAlexW4200170737

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.