Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35468776›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2022

Collective efficacy measures for women and girls in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Nabamallika Dehingia, Anvita Dixit, Karen Heskett, Anita Raj

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nabamallika DehingiaCenter On Gender Equity and Health, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0507, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0507, USA. ndehingi@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1787-9050
Anvita DixitCenter On Gender Equity and Health, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0507, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0507, USA.
Karen HeskettBiomedical Library, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Anita RajCenter On Gender Equity and Health, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0507, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0507, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrior research has shown collective efficacy to be a key determinant of women's well-being. However, much of the work around measuring this construct has been done in high-income geographies, with very little representation from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). To fill this gap, and guide future research in low resource settings, we aim to summarize best evidence measures of collective efficacy for women and girls from LMICs.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched five databases for English language peer-reviewed literature on measures of collective efficacy, published between 1 January 2009 and 25 August 2020. In addition, we sought expert input for relevant papers in this area. Research staff screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in a double-blind review. Inclusion criteria were: (i) original quantitative analysis, and (ii) sample limited to women/girls only (≥ 100), residing in LMICs.

resultsWe identified 786 unique articles, 14 of which met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies captured a diversity of population groups, including pregnant women, recent mothers, adolescent girls, and female sex workers, from across national settings. Two broad constructs of collective efficacy were captured by the measures: (i) group dynamics, and (ii) collective action. All 14 studies included items on group dynamics in their measures, whereas seven studies included items on collective action. Four studies validated new measures of collective efficacy, and seven provided evidence supporting the relationship between collective efficacy and outcomes related to women's well-being. Overall, measures demonstrated good reliability and validity when tested, and those testing for associations or effects found a positive relationship of collective efficacy with women's health behaviors.

conclusionThe past decade has resulted in a number of new collective efficacy measures demonstrating good validity in terms of their associations with key health outcomes among women and girls from across LMIC settings, but there remains no standard measure in the field. Those that exist focus on group dynamics, but less often on collective action. A standard measure of collective efficacy inclusive of group dynamics and collective action can support better understanding of the value of women's collectives across national settings and populations.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesSex WorkersAdolescentFemaleHumansIncomeMalePovertyPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsCollective efficacyLMICMeasurement

Identifiers

PMID35468776
PMCPMC9036723

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.