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

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":"2025-02-28","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":"","PubModel":"","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
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
Towards a common understanding of gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation for health programs and interventions: Evidence from a scoping review Theoretical foundations and mechanisms of health systems responsiveness: a realist synthesis Factors influencing healthcare facility selection in an urban setting in Lao PDR: Findings from a qualitative study Understanding the complex knowledge economy toward antimicrobial stewardship in West Bengal, India Brazilian healthcare bureaucracies and the production of antimicrobial resistance
×
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:481959085
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