Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36817917›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

SDG5 "Gender Equality" and the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid assessment of health system responses in selected upper-middle and high-income countries.

Ellen Kuhlmann, Gabriela Lotta, Michelle Fernandez, Asha Herten-Crabb, Leonie Mac Fehr, Jaimie-Lee Maple, Ligia Paina, Clare Wenham, Karen Willis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Ellen KuhlmannClinic for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Gabriela LottaDepartment of Public Administration, Getulio Vargas Foundation, São Paulo, Brazil.
Michelle FernandezInstitute of Political Science, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
Asha Herten-CrabbDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.
Leonie Mac FehrClinic for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Jaimie-Lee MapleCollege of Health and Biomedicine, University of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ligia PainaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Clare WenhamDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.
Karen WillisCollege of Health and Biomedicine, University of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and societies, exacerbating existing inequalities for women and girls across every sphere. Our study explores health system responses to gender equality goals during the COVID-19 pandemic and inclusion in future policies. Methods: We apply a qualitative comparative approach, drawing on secondary sources and expert information; the data was collected from March-July 2022. Australia, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the USA were selected, reflecting upper-middle and high-income countries with established public health and gender policies but different types of healthcare systems and epidemiological and geo-political conditions. Three sub-goals of SDG5 were analyzed: maternity care/reproductive health, gender-based violence, and gender equality/women's leadership. Results: We found similar trends across countries. Pandemic policies strongly cut into women's health, constrained prevention and support services, and weakened reproductive rights, while essential maternity care services were kept open. Intersecting gender inequalities were reinforced, sexual violence increased and women's leadership was weak. All healthcare systems failed to protect women's health and essential public health targets. Yet there were relevant differences in the responses to increased violence and reproductive rights, ranging from some support measures in Australia to an abortion ban in the US. Conclusions: Our study highlights a need for revising pandemic policies through a feminist lens.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesDeveloped CountriesFemaleGender EquityHumansPandemicsPregnancyWomen's RightsCOVID-19 pandemichealth systems and policyinternational comparisonSDG5 gender equalityupper-middle and high-income countries

Identifiers

PMID36817917
PMCPMC9935821

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.