ArticleBMJ public health2026
Gender-based discrimination towards cisgender women in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of definitions and measures used in the health literature.
Article in BMJ public 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gender-based discrimination (GBD) has pervasive effects on women's health outcomes. Measurement of GBD is essential in order both to understand and monitor progress against GBD and to study its relationship with health. We aimed to provide an overview of definitions and measures of GBD used in the literature on health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We conducted a mixed-method scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and EconLit and included studies from 1985 to 2025 if they had an explicit focus on GBD and health, were based in LMICs and if the measure of GBD was described. We excluded reviews and studies focusing on specific health conditions or subpopulations. We extracted information on study characteristics, definitions and measures of GBD (their content and their operationalisation). We synthesised data by identifying groups of similar GBD themes and summarising definitions and measures of GBD. Results: We included 228 studies. Most studies (n=200) were quantitative or included a quantitative element (n=8, mixed-methods studies). Only 20 studies were qualitative. We identified 11 themes around GBD, namely healthcare behaviours, health state, son preference at birth, disrespect and abuse during childbirth, self-declared discrimination, cultural and legal practices, gender roles, access to economic resources, decision-making, education and violence against women. Most studies (n=148) used only an individual indicator measure to operationalise GBD, while 65 studies used one or more composite indicators. Only 30 studies provided a definition of GBD and these varied considerably. Conclusions: This is the first review providing an overview of how GBD has been conceptualised and measured in LMICs in the literature on health. Results have several implications: (1) future studies should clearly define GBD when aiming to measure it; (2) a consensus should be reached about what GBD encompasses and (3) a comprehensive measurement tool is needed to capture discrimination with regard to the multiple manifestations of GBD.
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.