MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156660813 · doi:10.1371/journal

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

2017· review· en· W3156660813 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Miriam Hartmann, Rajat Khosla, Suneeta Krishnan, Asha George, Sofia Gruskin, Avni Amin

Bibliographic record

VenueUWC Research Repository (University of the Western Cape) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsGrey literaturePsychological interventionHuman rightsContext (archaeology)Systematic reviewReproductive healthThematic analysisPolitical scienceReproductive rightsRelevance (law)Qualitative researchPublic relationsPsychologySociologyMedicineSocial scienceMEDLINEEnvironmental healthPopulationNursingGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of promoting gender equality and human rights in sexual and reproductive
\nhealth (SRH) programmes and policies has been affirmed in numerous international
\nand regional agreements, most recently the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
\nGiven the critical role of research to determine what works, we aimed to identify research
\ngaps as part of a broader priority setting exercise on integrating gender equality and
\nhuman rights approaches in SRH programmes and policies. A systematic literature
\nreview of reviews was conducted to examine the question: what do we know about how
\nresearch in the context of SRH programmes and policies has addressed gender equality
\nand human rights and what are the current gaps in research. We searched three databases
\nfor reviews that addressed the research question, were published between 1994±
\n2014, and met methodological standards for systematic reviews, qualitative meta-syntheses
\nand other reviews of relevance to the research question. Additional grey literature
\nwas identified based on expert input. Articles were appraised by the primary author and
\nexamined by an expert panel. An abstraction and thematic analysis process was used to
\nsynthesize findings. Of the 3,073 abstracts identified, 56 articles were reviewed in full and
\n23 were included along with 10 from the grey literature. The majority focused on interventions
\naddressing gender inequalities; very few reviews explicitly included human rights
\nbased interventions. Across both topics, weak study designs and use of intermediate outcome
\nmeasures limited evidence quality. Further, there was limited evidence on interventions
\nthat addressed marginalized groups. Better quality studies, longer-term indicators,
\nand measurement of unintended consequences are needed to better understand the
\nimpact 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
\nset of SRH topics and populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.596
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.044 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWC Research Repository (University of the Western Cape)Same topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207