Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41886606›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2026

Toward a common lexicon in gender analysis for global health programs and policies.

Rosemary Morgan, Anna Kalbarczyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rosemary MorganDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5009-8470
Anna KalbarczykDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6143-8634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gender and gender analysis are frequently misunderstood or conflated with sex and gender identity, resulting in inconsistent terminology across cultural, social, and organizational contexts in global public health. This ambiguity has proliferated diverse frameworks and scales to assess gender-responsiveness, hindering comparison and implementation. Terms like gender mainstreaming, integration, and analysis are often used interchangeably despite distinct functions. As a methodological musing, this paper proposes normative definitions for commonly used terms-gender-responsiveness, gender mainstreaming, gender integration, gender analysis, gender situational analysis, gender assessment, and gender needs assessment-highlighting what each is/is not and providing usage guidance. This paper is intended as a methodological intervention in global public health and health policy/systems research, where terminological ambiguity can challenge credibility, limit comparability across studies and organizations, and obscure claims about how gendered power relations shape health and health systems. By offering clear definitions and guidance on the appropriate use of these terms, we aim to support a more coherent and rigorous approach to gender-responsive approaches and strategies.

Indexed as

Gender IdentityGlobal HealthHealth PolicyTerminology as TopicFemaleHumansMalegendermethodspolicyprogramsresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID41886606
PMCPMC13187648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.