ArticlePloS one2026
Addressing gender bias in sexual and reproductive health care: A scoping review of training tools and interventions.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gender norms and bias influence how health workers interpret and deliver sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services, contributing to stigma, discrimination, and inequities in care. This scoping review aimed to map training tools and educational interventions designed to strengthen health workers' competencies and address gender bias in SRHR care. This scoping review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were conducted across multiple databases and organizational websites for literature published between 2000 and November, 2025. Eligible records included manuals, curricula, toolkits, and educational interventions targeting health workers and addressing gender norms, bias, values, or stigma in SRHR care. Data were extracted and synthesized using descriptive and narrative approaches. A total of 128 sources were included, comprising 25 toolkits/manuals and 103 intervention reports representing 100 unique intervention approaches. Together, they covered diverse SRHR domains and used multi-component pedagogical approaches, including didactic instruction (98.4%), reflective or values-based learning (83.2%), and experiential methods such as role-play, simulation, and case-based learning (92%). Most interventions emphasized equitable, person-centered care (98.4%) and 68.8% incorporated gender-transformative elements, while 74.4% included system-level components. Across the mapped literature, gender-transformative and system-level approaches were incorporated to varying degrees, reflecting variability in their integration across educational interventions. Overall, the review highlights the breadth and characteristics of existing training approaches and identifies opportunities for greater integration of gender-transformative and system-level strategies in future SRHR training and evaluation.
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.