SynthesisInternational journal for equity in health2026
Gender innovation in the scientific evidence on interventions to reduce health inequalities in Europe: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in International journal for equity in health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical gender analysis is increasingly recognized as essential to improving the quality and equity of health research. This study aims to analyze the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce health inequalities in Europe and identify the level of gender innovation as a quality criterion.
methodsAn umbrella review was conducted to gather recent scientific evidence on community and/or health sector interventions in Europe aim at reducing health inequalities. Fourteen health science and social science databases were searched from 2016 to 2024. Seventeen qualitative and quantitative reviews were analysed to describe interventions effectiveness, examine the inclusion of sex and gender categories, and assess the gender approach in the reviews. An adapted version of the SGAT-SR instrument and a gender innovation classification system were used for the last two analysis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022286792.
resultsThe 17 systematic reviews analysed encompassed 338 interventions. In 35% of the reviews, sex or gender categories were used incorrectly. 52.9% of the reviews omitted gender in their analyses (gender-blind) yet concluded that the outcomes of health promotion and disease prevention programs were effective. Only one review identified effective interventions and was found to be gender-transformative.
conclusionsThe degree of gender innovation in systematic reviews was considered insufficient or questionable. The scientific community does not currently consider the inclusion of gender as scientific, methodological (and therefore social) requirement that should be addressed with the same level of rigor and excellence as ‘traditional’ epidemiological considerations in systematic reviews.
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.