Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42187212›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2026

A scoping review of theoretical and measurement approaches to women's empowerment in low-and middle-income countries' capacity-building interventions.

Fitsum Kibreab, Asia Haraburda, Yousef A A Albaba, Ai Chee Yong, Kajal Shah, Sanele Buthelezi, Ving Fai Chan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 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

7 authors.

Fitsum KibreabHealth Research and Resources Centre Division, Ministry of Health, Asmara, Eritrea.ORCID 0000-0001-7417-4378
Asia HaraburdaCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-3621-5308
Yousef A A AlbabaCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-8020-3639
Ai Chee YongCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5623-5886
Kajal ShahSchool of Physics, Clinical and Ophthalmic Sciences, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5848-2976
Sanele ButheleziDepartment of Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1778-2152
Ving Fai ChanCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4968-7953

Funding

Wellcome Trust R2806CPH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women's empowerment is critical for achieving gender equality and sustainable development in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Capacity-building interventions, such as vocational training, microfinance, and digital literacy programmes, are frequently employed to foster empowerment. However, wide variation exists in how empowerment is defined, theorised, and measured, limiting comparability across studies. This scoping review mapped the conceptual foundations, theoretical frameworks, and measurement approaches used in capacity-building interventions for women entrepreneurs in LMICs. The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and was reported in line with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and JSTOR, complemented by grey literature from major development agencies (2010-2024). Eligible studies focused on capacity-building interventions targeting women entrepreneurs in LMICs. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, which were synthesised thematically. Of 11,109 records identified, 25 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (48%) and South Asia (32%). While 76% defined empowerment, 60% did not employ any explicit theoretical or conceptual framework. Among those that did, frameworks, such as Kabeer's, Longwe's, and Malhotra et al.'s were used inconsistently. Economic empowerment was the most frequently assessed domain, often measured through income or business performance, while social, political, and psychological dimensions were seldom examined. Indicators were heterogeneous and largely self-reported. Conceptual ambiguity and inconsistent measurement hinder progress in women's empowerment research in LMICs. Future studies should adopt theoretically grounded, multidimensional, and context-sensitive frameworks to capture empowerment as a dynamic process beyond economic gains.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingDeveloping CountriesEmpowermentPower, PsychologicalWomen's RightsEntrepreneurshipFemaleGender EquityHumanscapacity buildingEntrepreneurmicrofinancesustainable developmentwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID42187212
PMCPMC13215425

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.