ArticleBMC public health2025
Contrasting organizational responses to femicide in Mexico's public health crisis.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFemicide-the gender-motivated killing of women-remains an urgent public health and human rights crisis in Latin America. In Mexico, legal reforms have established formal mechanisms for prevention and response, yet implementation remains fragmented, particularly in regions marked by structural violence and institutional distrust. This study examines how femicide is conceptualized and addressed by both formal institutions and grassroots organizations in two distinct contexts: Mexico City and rural Michoacán.
methodsDrawing on 64 in-depth interviews and participant observations conducted between 2022 and 2024, this qualitative study employs a comparative case study design to explore how divergent organizational frameworks, political conditions, and cultural logics shape femicide response. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in discourse, action, and collaboration across formal and community-based actors.
resultsFindings reveal two fundamentally different logics of femicide response. Formal institutions emphasize legal harmonization, training protocols, and policy compliance metrics-reflecting a technocratic model of prevention aligned with bureaucratic governance. Grassroots actors, by contrast, center relational care, symbolic resistance, and immediate community mobilization. These differences are not merely operational, but epistemic: institutional actors often devalue lived experience and emotional labor, while grassroots actors articulate survivor-defined safety, cultural legitimacy, and trust as central to prevention. In rural and high-impunity regions, community-led responses often function as the only reliable form of protection and accountability.
conclusionsFemicide prevention frameworks in Mexico must move beyond symbolic gestures of inclusion and begin to reckon with the structural exclusion of grassroots knowledge and labor. Meaningful response requires a shift in power and priorities-one that values community knowledge, centers survivor-defined metrics of safety and trust, and explores models of shared governance in contexts where institutional systems are distrusted or absent. In such settings, grassroots responses are not peripheral-they are essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.