Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35422594›Full record

ArticleEconomia politica (Bologna, Italy)2022

The legacy of public action and gender-sensitivity of the pandemic response in Kerala State, India.

R Ramakumar, Mridul Eapen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Economia politica (Bologna, Italy), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R RamakumarSchool of Development Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai, 400088 India.ORCID 0000-0002-9090-5780
Mridul EapenCentre for Development Studies, Prasanth Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, 695011 India.
Centre For Development Studies · INTata Institute of Social Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kerala State, India has received global attention in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Its response effectively attended to the health pandemic and focussed on economic relief. This paper attempts to understand how gender-responsive Kerala's policies were. Kerala's success was due to its historical preparedness and contemporary policy innovations. Over the years, public action was able to ensure that the state and the society were equipped to meet the challenges of a disaster, such as of the pandemic. In the 1990s, when India sought to limit state intervention and promote market-based solutions, public policy in Kerala shifted gears to deepen state intervention by promoting community participation and empowering women. As in other Indian States, the pandemic in Kerala too led to losses of female employment, rise in gender-based violence, a deterioration of women's mental health and rise in unequal care burdens. But Kerala's response was distinctive. Several policy interventions had foregrounded women's needs, which helped ensure gender-sensitivity in Kerala's pandemic response. Kerala's economic relief package included cash support, employment, free food provision and zero-interest loans to women. Through helplines, the government reached out and helped women report instances of violence and mental stress. The gender-sensitivity of Kerala's pandemic response is a rich guide as a demonstration of its possibilities and a reminder of the essential pre-requisites to achieve it.

Indexed as

Covid-19Gender-responsive policyGender sensitivityIndiaKeralaPandemic

Identifiers

PMID35422594
PMCPMC8523930
OpenAlexW3206022527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.