No abstract

Background Effective measurement of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE) is challenging in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), and even more so in humanitarian settings. Conflict, natural disasters, and epidemics may increase gender inequities, but also present an opportunity to address them. This scoping review describes and identifies gaps in the measurement tools, methods, and indicators used to measure GEWE in humanitarian settings, and presents a dashboard that can be used by researchers, organizations and governments to identify GEWE measurement tools. Methods Scientific articles published between January 2004 and November 2019 were identified using Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and PAIS index. Relevant non peer-reviewed literature was downloaded from the websites of humanitarian organizations. Publications on women and/or girls impacted by a humanitarian crisis in a LMIC, within 5 years of data collection, were included. Publications were double-screened in the title/abstract and full-text stages. We used a machine learning software during the title/abstract screening to increase the efficiency of the process. Measurement tools, sampling and data collection methods, gap areas (geographical, topical and contextual), and indicators were catalogued for easy access in an interactive Tableau dashboard. Results Our search yielded 27,197 publications and 2396 non peer-reviewed literature reports. One hundred and seventy publications were included in the final review. Extracted indicators were categorized into seven domains: economic, health, human development, leadership, psychological, security and justice, and sociocultural. The vast majority of studies were observational, and over 70% utilized a cross-sectional study design. Thirty-eight toolkits and questionnaires were identified in this review, of which 19 (50%) were designed specifically for humanitarian settings. Sociocultural was the largest domain in number of studies and indicators in this review, with gender-based violence indicators reported in 66% of studies. Indicators of economic, human development and leadership were uncommon in the peer-reviewed literature. Discussion While there has been some effort to measure GEWE in conflict-affected and other humanitarian settings, measurement has largely focused on violence and security issues. A more comprehensive framework for measuring GEWE in these settings is needed; objective measurement of women’s empowerment and gender equality should be prioritized by organizations providing humanitarian aid.

Background: Effective measurement of all health indicators and especially SRHR is difficult in humanitarian settings. Displacement and insecurity due to conflict, natural disasters, and epidemics place women and girls at higher risk of SRHR-related morbidity and mortality and reduce the coverage of essential SRHR services. This scoping review describes the measurement tools, methods, and indicators used to measure SRHR coverage and outcome indicators in humanitarian settings in the past 15 years and presents an accessible dashboard that can be used by governments, researchers and implementing organizations to identify available SRHR measurement tools. Methods: Scientific articles published between January 2004 and May 2019 were identified using Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, PAIS index as well as relevant non-peer-reviewed literature available through websites of humanitarian organizations. Publications including data from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), focused on women and/or girls living in areas impacted by a humanitarian crisis, where data was collected within five years of the crisis were included. Indicators extracted from these publications were categorized according to validated SRHR indicators recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Measurement tools, sampling and data collection methods, gap areas (geographical, topical and contextual), and indicators were catalogued for easy access in an interactive Tableau dashboard. Results: Our search yielded 42,081 peer-reviewed publications and 2,569 non-peer-reviewed reports. After initial title and abstract screening, 385 publications met the inclusion criteria. SRHR indicators were categorized into nine domains: abortion, antenatal care, family planning, gender-based violence, HIV and sexually transmitted infections, maternal health, maternal mortality, menstrual and gynecological health, and obstetric care (delivery). A total of 65 tools and questionnaires measuring SRHR were identified, of which 25 were designed specifically for humanitarian settings. Discussion: Although SRHR was measured in humanitarian settings, several gaps in measurement were identified. Abortion and gynaecological health were not consistently measured across included studies or validated WHO indicators. Toolkits and indicators identified in this review may be used to inform future SRHR data collection in humanitarian settings. However, identifying and/or developing innovative data collection methodologies should be a research priority, especially in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic.