MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008370998 · doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1704530

Promoting equity in maternal, newborn and child health – how does gender factor in? Perceptions of public servants in the Ethiopian health sector

2020· article· en· W3008370998 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Bergen, Grace Zhu, Shifera Asfaw Yedenekal, Abebe Mamo, Lakew Abebe Gebretsadik, Morankar Sudhakar, Ronald Labonté

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Action · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlobal Affairs CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsHealth promotionHealth equityPublic healthHealth policyThematic analysisReproductive healthMedicineQualitative researchPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthNursingEnvironmental healthPopulationSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Advancing gender equality and health equity are concurrent priorities of the Ethiopian health sector. While gender is regarded as an important determinant of health, there is a paucity of literature that considers the interface between how these two priorities are pursued.Objective: This article explores how government stakeholders understand gender issues (gender barriers and roles) in the promotion of maternal, newborn and child health equity in Ethiopia.Methods: Adopting an exploratory qualitative case study design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 purposively-selected stakeholders working in leadership positions with the Federal Ministry of Health and Federal Ministry of Women and Children Affairs as part of a larger study regarding the promotion of health equity in maternal, newborn and child health. A post hoc content and thematic sub-analysis was done to explore how participants raised gender issues in conversations about health equity.Results: Efforts to address gender inequalities were synonymous with the promotion of a women’s health agenda, which was largely oriented towards promoting health service use. Men were predominant decision makers with regards to women’s health and health care seeking in both public and private spheres. Participants reported persisting gender-related barriers to health stemming from traditional gender roles, and noted the increased inclusion of women in the health workforce since the introduction of the Health Extension Program.Conclusions: The framing of gender as a women’s health issue, advanced through patriarchal structures, does little to elevate the status of women, or promote power differentials that contribute to health inequity. Encouraging leadership roles for women as health decision makers and redressing certain gender-based norms, attitudes, practices and discrimination are possible ways forward in re-orienting gender equality efforts to align with the promotion of health equity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health ActionSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207