ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Assessing the gender responsiveness of tuberculosis interventions: a scoping review (2000-2025).
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) continues to impose significant morbidity and mortality, with gender influencing access and outcomes within the TB care continuum. Despite international guidance and global commitments on gender-responsive TB care to improve the equity and effectiveness of the TB response, the extent to which gender is considered in TB strategies remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to collate and synthesize the evidence on gender-responsive TB interventions designed and implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high TB burden countries from 2000 to 2025.
methodsThe review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review guidelines, using the PRISMA-ScR framework for reporting. Studies were eligible if they described TB initiatives for adults aged ≥ 15 years, addressed access to services across the TB care cascade, written in English and explicitly mentioned gender considerations in their introduction, study aims and objectives, or methods sections, beyond sex-disaggregation of results. The search spanned multiple databases and included both peer-reviewed and grey literature. Quality assessment was done using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT), and gender responsiveness was assessed using the WHO Gender Responsiveness Assessment Tool (GRAT).
resultsAlthough many TB initiatives reported sex-disaggregated results, most were not gender-responsive by design; thus, from 3878 identified studies, 15 met inclusion criteria. Gender responsiveness varied as two interventions did not consider gender differences, treating everyone the same (gender-blind), eleven indicated gender awareness but lacked proper remedial action (gender-sensitive), and two were designed to target and benefit a specific group of women or men (gender-specific). No studies were found to be gender unequal or gender transformative. Nine studies targeted their intervention towards both men and women, five towards women only, and one towards men only. CCAT scores ranged from 52.5% (moderate quality) to 95% (high quality).
conclusionThis scoping review found limited consideration of gender in TB interventions, with most studies addressing gender superficially by including female healthcare workers or sex-disaggregated results without rigorous design, analysis, or proposed recommendations relating to the influence of gender norms on access to TB care. There remains a significant gap in gender-transformative TB programming which risks perpetuating disparities in access and health outcomes across genders which will challenge global commitments to ending TB.
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.