Gender-sensitive health and social policy and programs: fundamental mechanisms for sustainable gender-equitable access to health and social services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current data on mortality, morbidity, and the use of health and social services show significant differences in health experiences between men and women worldwide. For instance, research reports indicate that men experience higher mortality and lower life expectancy than women. Across lifespan, women may experience more ill-health than men. This paper posits that these gender-based differences in health status are due to the pervasive gender-inequity in health and social care access. We argue that the overwhelming reason for the differences in health experiences between women and men is the poorly managed structural determinants of health. Therefore, we propose a gender-sensitive health and social policy model as a fundamental mechanism that may promote sustainable gender-equitable access to health and social services. We make this recommendation based on the outcomes of our systematic review of eight projects that encouraged gender-sensitivity, self-empowerment, the four-cardinal ethical principles, and sustainability.
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 | 0.104 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".