Towards a common understanding of gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation for health programs and interventions: Evidence from a scoping review

SSM - Health Systems Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmhs.2025.100059
Anna Kalbarczyk , Daniel Krugman , Shatha Elnakib , Elizabeth Hazel , Amy Luo , Anju Malhotra , Rosemary Morgan
{"title":"Towards a common understanding of gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation for health programs and interventions: Evidence from a scoping review","authors":"Anna Kalbarczyk ,&nbsp;Daniel Krugman ,&nbsp;Shatha Elnakib ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Hazel ,&nbsp;Amy Luo ,&nbsp;Anju Malhotra ,&nbsp;Rosemary Morgan","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmhs.2025.100059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Given the many approaches to and definitions of gender responsive monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) for health programs and interventions there is a lack of clarity on how to operationalize it including what to measure and how to measure it. We conducted a scoping review to understand what makes M&amp;E gender responsive. We included 31 studies and conducted two rounds of extraction to delineate ways in which gender was integrated into M&amp;E. Twelve articles described the use of theory to guide M&amp;E though most were not related to gender. Twelve articles employed a gender score in data collection, most of which measured Likert scale responses related to gender equity. Even though most studies did not use a specific gender framework, most incorporated gender domains in their analysis. Seven studies used participatory methods in the design and implementation of M&amp;E. Most studies conducted M&amp;E on programs or interventions that were designed to be gender intentional and related to gender issues. Gender responsive M&amp;E intentionally integrates gender into the M&amp;E process, regardless of how gender-intentional the program or intervention is. Gender dimensions can be identified through gender theories, models, scores, and frameworks to inform tool development, data collection, analysis, and stakeholder engagement processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101183,"journal":{"name":"SSM - Health Systems","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100059"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM - Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294985622500011X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the many approaches to and definitions of gender responsive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for health programs and interventions there is a lack of clarity on how to operationalize it including what to measure and how to measure it. We conducted a scoping review to understand what makes M&E gender responsive. We included 31 studies and conducted two rounds of extraction to delineate ways in which gender was integrated into M&E. Twelve articles described the use of theory to guide M&E though most were not related to gender. Twelve articles employed a gender score in data collection, most of which measured Likert scale responses related to gender equity. Even though most studies did not use a specific gender framework, most incorporated gender domains in their analysis. Seven studies used participatory methods in the design and implementation of M&E. Most studies conducted M&E on programs or interventions that were designed to be gender intentional and related to gender issues. Gender responsive M&E intentionally integrates gender into the M&E process, regardless of how gender-intentional the program or intervention is. Gender dimensions can be identified through gender theories, models, scores, and frameworks to inform tool development, data collection, analysis, and stakeholder engagement processes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对促进性别平等的卫生方案和干预措施的监测和评价达成共识:来自范围审查的证据
鉴于促进性别平等的卫生方案和干预措施监测和评价(M&;E)的许多方法和定义,如何实施这种监测和评价缺乏明确性,包括衡量什么和如何衡量。我们进行了范围审查,以了解是什么使M&;E对性别敏感。我们纳入了31项研究,并进行了两轮提取,以描述性别融入M&;E的方式。12篇文章描述了使用理论来指导M&;E,尽管大多数与性别无关。12篇文章在数据收集中采用了性别评分,其中大多数测量了与性别平等相关的李克特量表反应。尽管大多数研究没有使用特定的性别框架,但大多数研究都在分析中纳入了性别领域。七项研究采用参与式方法设计和实施M&;E。大多数研究都是对设计为性别意识和与性别问题相关的项目或干预措施进行M&;E。无论项目或干预的性别意识有多强,性别响应管理都会有意地将性别融入管理过程。性别维度可以通过性别理论、模型、分数和框架来确定,从而为工具开发、数据收集、分析和利益相关者参与过程提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Challenging gender norms through participatory action research: A cross-country study of women close-to-community healthcare providers in fragile settings Co-developing Canadian hospital research tracking criteria: Findings from a National Consensus Building Meeting using the nominal group technique Assessing clinical networks through evidence: an empirical analysis of the effectiveness of cancer networks in improving patients’ quality of care and survival Breaking barriers to access to sexual and reproductive health for migrant women in Castel Volturno, Italy: Combining a public health with an anthropological perspective Early identification and referral of children with disabilities in Mainland Tanzania: A qualitative study using the system level analysis approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1