首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >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
【2h】

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

机译:性健康和生殖健康计划与政策中如何包括性别平等和人权干预:对现有研究重点和空白的系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The 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.
机译:许多国际和区域协定,最近是《 2030年可持续发展议程》,都确认了在性健康和生殖健康(SRH)方案和政策中促进性别平等和人权的重要性。鉴于研究对于确定有效方法的关键作用,我们旨在确定研究差距,这是将性别平等和人权方法纳入SRH计划和政策的更广泛的优先事项设定工作的一部分。对审查进行了系统的文献审查,以探讨以下问题:我们对在性健康和生殖健康计划和政策范围内进行的研究如何解决性别平等和人权问题以及目前的研究空白有什么了解?我们搜索了三个数据库,以解决研究问题,并于1994年至2014年之间发表,并达到了系统评价,定性元合成和与研究问题相关的其他评价的方法学标准。根据专家意见确定了其他灰色文献。文章由主要作者评估,并由专家小组审查。摘要和主题分析过程用于综合发现。在确定的3,073个摘要中,对56篇文章进行了全面审查,其中包括23篇,以及灰色文献中的10篇。大多数人侧重于解决性别不平等的干预措施;很少有评论明确包括基于人权的干预措施。在这两个主题中,较弱的研究设计和中间结果测量方法的使用都限制了证据质量。此外,关于针对边缘群体的干预措施的证据有限。为了更好地了解这些类型的干预措施对SRH结果的影响,需要进行更好的质量研究,长期指标以及意外后果的衡量。由于涉及更广泛的性,生殖健康和生殖健康主题和人群,因此需要做出进一步的努力来涵盖关于性别平等和人权问题的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号