Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHartmann, Miriam
dc.contributor.authorKhosla, Rajat
dc.contributor.authorKrishnan, Suneeta
dc.contributor.authorGeorge, Asha S.
dc.contributor.authorGruskin, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorAmin, Avni
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-05T09:23:12Z
dc.date.available2017-06-05T09:23:12Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationHartmann, M. et al. (2016). How are gender equality and human rights interventions included in sexual and reproductive health programmes and policies: a systematic review of existing research foci and gaps. PLoS ONE, 11(12): e0167542.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10566/2923
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167542
dc.description.abstractThe importance of promoting gender equality and human rights in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programmes and policies has been affirmed in numerous international and regional agreements, most recently the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Given the critical role of research to determine what works, we aimed to identify research gaps as part of a broader priority setting exercise on integrating gender equality and human rights approaches in SRH programmes and policies. A systematic literature review of reviews was conducted to examine the question: what do we know about how research in the context of SRH programmes and policies has addressed gender equality and human rights and what are the current gaps in research. We searched three databases for reviews that addressed the research question, were published between 1994-2014, and met methodological standards for systematic reviews, qualitative meta-syntheses and other reviews of relevance to the research question. Additional grey literature was identified based on expert input. Articles were appraised by the primary author and examined by an expert panel. An abstraction and thematic analysis process was used to synthesize findings. Of the 3,073 abstracts identified, 56 articles were reviewed in full and 23 were included along with 10 from the grey literature. The majority focused on interventions addressing gender inequalities; very few reviews explicitly included human rights based interventions. Across both topics, weak study designs and use of intermediate outcome measures limited evidence quality. Further, there was limited evidence on interventions that addressed marginalized groups. Better quality studies, longer-term indicators, and measurement of unintended consequences are needed to better understand the impact of these types of interventions on SRH outcomes. Further efforts are needed to cover research on gender equality and human rights issues as they pertain to a broader set of SRH topics and populations.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.rightsCopyright 2016 Hartmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.subjectDatabaseen_US
dc.subjectExerciseen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectGenderen_US
dc.subjectHuman rightsen_US
dc.subjectReproductive healthen_US
dc.subjectSynthesisen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectThematic analysisen_US
dc.titleHow are gender equality and human rights interventions included in sexual and reproductive health programmes and policies: A systematic review of existing research foci and gapsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.privacy.showsubmitterFALSE
dc.status.ispeerreviewedTRUE
dc.description.accreditationScopusen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record