MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412176823 · doi:10.1007/s44155-025-00266-6

Addressing gender inequalities in health: a comprehensive framework for policy and practice

2025· article· en· W4412176823 on OpenAlexaff
Zeinab Khaledian, Maryam Tajvar, Amirhossein Takian, Mehdi Yaseri, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Alireza Olyaeemanesh

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Social Science and Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsInequalitySociologyPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite evidence on the role of gender as a social determinant of health, there is a lack of frameworks that focus on the factors contributing to gender inequalities in health (GIeH) and their specific characteristics. We aim to present the GIeH framework, specifically designed to illustrate the processes, determinants, and consequences of GIeH that support improved measurement of gender equality in health and inform policymaking. A ‘best-fit’ framework synthesis was utilized. We identified the existing frameworks to generate an a priori framework, followed by systematically identifying relevant studies and coding their results against it. We searched bibliographic databases including Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and grey literature and relevant websites, using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. No restrictions were imposed on document type, setting, date, or language and we used the JBI critical appraisal checklist to assess the quality of included studies. Thematic analysis and team discussions were applied to finalize the sub-themes in our proposed conceptual framework. Based on the synthesis of identified evidence, we categorized eight themes and 48 sub-themes into determinants and consequences of GIeH. These determinants were classified into four layers: context, health system, community-household, and individual factors. We provided a schematic to illustrate the interaction process between these layers, contributing to gender inequalities in health outcomes such as health status, life expectancy, health- related quality of life, mortality, and morbidity. This framework provides a broad perspective on gender inequalities in health. It is a practical tool for health policymakers and professionals, providing a systematic approach to measure, monitor, and address these inequalities. By highlighting the interactions of various factors from Micro to Macro level and their effects on health outcomes, the framework facilitates strategic policy interventions and empirical solutions to promoting health equity. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO; CRD42022366765.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.131 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Social Science and HealthSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207