A human rights-based framework to assess gender equality in health systems: the example of Zika virus in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The right to health was enshrined in the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1946 and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The latter Declaration, which also guaranteed women's rights, was signed by almost all countries in the world. Subsequent international conventions reinforced these rights, requiring that women be able to realize their fundamental freedoms and dignity. Although the value of incorporating gender into health systems has been increasingly acknowledged over the years, gender inequalities in health persist. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a tool to help countries assess their performance in addressing gender inequalities in their health systems, using the example of the Zika virus (ZIKV) in countries of the Americas. METHODS: This paper is based on comprehensive reviews of the literature on the links between gender equality, health systems and human rights, and available scientific evidence about an adequate response to ZIKV. RESULTS: The authors present a simple two-part framework from the human rights perspectives of the health system as duty bearer, incorporating WHO's six health system building blocks, and of its clients as rights holders. The authors apply the framework to ZIKV in the Americas, and identify strengths and weaknesses at every level of the health system. They find that when considering gender, health systems have focused mainly on dichotomous sex differences, failing to consider broader gender relations and processes affecting access to services, quality of care, and health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' framework will permit countries to assess progress toward gender equality in health, within the context of their human rights commitments, by examining each health system building block, and the degree to which clients are realizing their rights. By applying the framework to specific health conditions, gender-related achievements and shortcomings can be identified in each health system component, fostering a more comprehensive and gender-sensitive response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".