Research to support evidence-informed decisions on optimizing gender equity in health workforce policy and planning

Gupta, Neeru

doi:10.1186/s12960-019-0380-6

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A meta-analysis was performed on studies that were deemed to be of at least satisfactory quality to evaluate mortality and disease severity in males compared with females. In order to do this, a random-effects meta-analysis, using the Dersimonian-Laird method, was performed using Stata SE version 16 (Copyright 1985-2019. The random-effects model was chosen because it was unknown whether there was a 'true' effect size underlying all studies, which would indicate the use of a fixed-effects meta-analysis; thus, we selected a more conservative approach.…”

Section: Data Synthesis and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does gender influence clinical expression and disease outcomes in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ortolan¹,

Lorenzin²,

Felicetti³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) was characterized at the end of 2019, and soon spread around the world, generating a pandemic. It has been suggested that men are more severely affected by the viral disease (COVID-19) than women. Objective: The aim of this systematic literature review (SRL) and meta-analysis was to analyse the influence of gender on COVID-19 mortality, severity, and disease outcomes. A SRL was performed in PubMed and Embase, searching terms corresponding to the 'PEO' format: population = adult patients affected with COVID-19; exposure = gender; outcome = any available clinical outcomes by gender, including mortality and disease severity. The search covered the period from January 1 to April 30, 2020. Exclusion criteria were: case reports/series, reviews, commentaries, languages other than English. Fulltext, original articles were included. Data on study type, country, and patients' characteristics were extracted. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). From a total of 950 hits generated by the database search, 85 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected. Results: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to compare mortality, recovery rates, and disease severity in men compared with women. The male to female ratio for cases was 1:0.9. A significant association was found between male sex and mortality (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.25-2.62), as well as a lower chance of recovery in men (OR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95). Male patients were more likely to present with a severe form of COVID-19 (OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.10-1.94). Conclusions: Males are slightly more susceptible to SARS-CoV2 infection, present with a more severe disease, and have a worse prognosis. Further studies are warranted to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying these observations.

show abstract

Section: Data Synthesis and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From a social standpoint, most healthcare workers are women in several world regions, including the Americas, Europe, South-East Asia, the Western Pacific, and Eastern Mediterranean areas. Furthermore, they have a predominant role in family caring in many countries (Gupta, 2019). Thus, they could represent highly exposed individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does gender influence clinical expression and disease outcomes in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ortolan¹,

Lorenzin²,

Felicetti³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of acknowledgment of gender bias in scientific publishing could help explain the knowledge and evidence gaps on gendered impacts of performance-based HRH financing. Gender-blindness in health research and across the sciences is increasingly documented as potentially contributing to reinforce existing gender inequalities, related to a wide range of factors, including bias against research on gender bias [ 25 , 48 – 50 ]. For instance, while social science research is often seen as central to enhance understanding of equity in health systems [ 51 ], a review of bibliometrics in the social sciences found that articles focusing on gender bias were more often published in journals with a lower impact factor than those considering other dimensions of social discrimination [ 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, while social science research is often seen as central to enhance understanding of equity in health systems [ 51 ], a review of bibliometrics in the social sciences found that articles focusing on gender bias were more often published in journals with a lower impact factor than those considering other dimensions of social discrimination [ 48 ]. Some peer-reviewed journals have taken a stance to promote research to help inform actions to address persistent gender inequalities and mitigate gender bias in publication processes [ 25 , 52 ]; however, avoidance of the identification and reduction of bias remains a seemingly acceptable occurrence. Not all published studies included in this review used gender-inclusive language throughout (e.g., referring to physicians’ characteristics as “the GP himself” [Table 5 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies from different countries have indicated that female physicians continue to earn on average 13% less than male physicians, after controlling for factors such as specialty and working hours [ 23 , 24 ]. While health systems are often considered insufficiently responsive to women’s specific health needs, they are also highly dependent on women as providers of care [ 25 ]. Women are increasingly predominant in the physician workforce, and specifically the primary care physician workforce, in many countries [ 24 , 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Gupta

Ayles

2020

Hum Resour Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although pay-for-performance (P4P) among primary care physicians for enhanced chronic disease management is increasingly common, the evidence base is fragmented in terms of socially equitable impacts in achieving the quadruple aim for healthcare improvement: better population health, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced patient and provider experiences. This study aimed to assess the literature from a systematic review on how P4P for diabetes services impacts on gender equity in patient outcomes and the physician workforce. Methods A gender-based analysis was performed of studies retrieved through a systematic search of 10 abstract and citation databases plus grey literature sources for P4P impact assessments in multiple languages over the period January 2000 to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was restricted to single-payer national health systems to minimize the risk of physicians sorting out of health organizations with a strong performance pay component. Two reviewers scored and synthesized the integration of sex and gender in assessing patient- and provider-oriented outcomes as well as the quality of the evidence. Findings Of the 2218 identified records, 39 studies covering eight P4P interventions in seven countries were included for analysis. Most (79%) of the studies reported having considered sex/gender in the design, but only 28% presented sex-disaggregated patient data in the results of the P4P assessment models, and none (0%) assessed the interaction of patients’ sex with the policy intervention. Few (15%) of the studies controlled for the provider’s sex, and none (0%) discussed impacts of P4P on the work life of providers from a gender perspective (e.g., pay equity). Conclusions There is a dearth of evidence on gender-based outcomes of publicly funded incentivizing physician payment schemes for chronic disease care. As the popularity of P4P to achieve health system goals continues to grow, so does the risk of unintended consequences. There is a critical need for research integrating gender concerns to help inform performance-based health workforce financing policy options in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals.

show abstract

SDG5, gender equality: co-benefits and challenges

Kuhlmann,

Lotta

2024

Health ≪i>for

1
0
0
0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

104 7 SDG5, gender equality: co-benefits and challenges ellen kuhlmann, gabriela lotta IntroductionUniversal healthcare coverage (UHC), "Health for all" and "Leaving no one behind" (WHO, 2021) need to include equity of and access for women, men and all other genders. The reverse is true as well: gender equality and human rights need health equity. Assessing policy co-benefits and improving intersectoral governance may help us achieve progress in these areas. This chapter explores the linkages between SDG3 Health and SDG5 "Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls". We introduce selected sub-goals/targets of the two SDGs and briefly clarify the terms and concepts of gender equality. We argue that health equity and gender equality are "'twin forces" that are historically connected and cannot be separated, creating either strong co-benefits or a "double jeopardy" scenario for health and gender equality. Thus, developments at the crossroads of SDG3 and SDG5 are never "gender neutral" and need attention for two reasons: to strengthen the health policy co-benefits and to prevent and mitigate adverse effects if gender equality is ignored.The chapter describes the pathways between health and gender equality, taking into account theoretical issues, governance and policy challenges. We introduce a conceptual model of researching co-benefits that expands the focus on macro-level co-benefits towards more complex governance processes and outcomes. Selected empirical case studies consider four major targets of SDG5 and related SDG3 sub-goals, illustrating different scenarios of implementation of health and gender co-benefits in a range of policy and governance contexts.Our first case study highlights an optimum scenario of co-benefits driven by health policy action, using two mini-case studies as empirical examples: domestic violence against women (Amin, Kismödi & García-Moreno, 2015; WHO, 2002) and training midwives to improve access of migrant women to healthcare (Fair et al., 2021). Both examples are characterized through a global/European approach and a scenario of

show abstract

Research to support evidence-informed decisions on optimizing gender equity in health workforce policy and planning

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Does gender influence clinical expression and disease outcomes in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Does gender influence clinical expression and disease outcomes in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

SDG5, gender equality: co-benefits and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About