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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".