Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35164797›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2022

Assessing gender responsiveness of COVID-19 response plans for populations in conflict-affected humanitarian emergencies.

Yara M Asi, Priliantina Bebasari, Emily Hardy, Michelle Lokot, Kristen Meagher, Emilomo Ogbe, Ateeb Ahmad Parray, Vandana Sharma, Claire J Standley, Luissa Vahedi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. "International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Yara M AsiSchool of Global Health Management and Informatics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. Yara.asi@knights.ucf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3432-6407
Priliantina BebasariGender Specialist and Consultant, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Emily HardyWalsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Michelle LokotDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kristen MeagherConflict and Health Research Group, King's College London, London, UK.
Emilomo OgbeAISE Consulting, Ghent, Belgium.
Ateeb Ahmad ParrayJames P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Vandana SharmaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Claire J StandleyCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Luissa VahediBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
BRAC University · BDGeorgetown University · USHarvard Global Health Institute · USKing's College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Central Florida · USWalsh University · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid development of preparedness and response plans to quell transmission and prevent illness across the world. Increasingly, there is an appreciation of the need to consider equity issues in the development and implementation of these plans, not least with respect to gender, given the demonstrated differences in the impacts both of the disease and of control measures on men, women, and non-binary individuals. Humanitarian crises, and particularly those resulting from conflict or violence, exacerbate pre-existing gender inequality and discrimination. To this end, there is a particularly urgent need to assess the extent to which COVID-19 response plans, as developed for conflict-affected states and forcibly displaced populations, are gender responsive.

methodsUsing a multi-step selection process, we identified and analyzed 30 plans from states affected by conflict and those hosting forcibly displaced refugees and utilized an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Gender Responsive Assessment Scale (WHO-GRAS) to determine whether existing COVID-19 response plans were gender-negative, gender-blind, gender-sensitive, or gender-transformative.

resultsWe find that although few plans were gender-blind and none were gender-negative, no plans were gender-transformative. Most gender-sensitive plans only discuss issues specifically related to women (such as gender-based violence and reproductive health) rather than mainstream gender considerations throughout all sectors of policy planning.

conclusionsDespite overwhelming evidence about the importance of intentionally embedding gender considerations into the COVID-19 planning and response, none of the plans reviewed in this study were classified as 'gender transformative.' We use these results to make specific recommendations for how infectious disease control efforts, for COVID-19 and beyond, can better integrate gender considerations in humanitarian settings, and particularly those affected by violence or conflict.

Indexed as

ConflictCOVID-19GenderHumanitarian emergenciesPandemic planningRefugeesWHO-GRAS

Identifiers

PMID35164797
PMCPMC8842977
OpenAlexW4212834061

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.