Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.
Evaluations of Gender-Integrated
Reproductive Health Interventions:
A Review of Measures and Designs
Brittany Schriver Isk...
Outline
• Background
• Study methods
• Summary of findings
• Conclusion
Background
Gender inequality is associated
with poor health outcomes
• Higher child mortality, stunting, and
wasting
• Low...
Aim
To conduct a systematic
review of peer-reviewed
articles on evaluations of
gender-integrated RH
programs with regard t...
Methods
Nested within larger systematic
review of peer-reviewed
articles
• English-language
• LMIC
• January 1, 2008—June ...
Methods
34 point futura and copy
• 24 point futura and copy
34 point gill sans mt and
copy
• 24 point gill sans mt and cop...
Methods
Abstracted data:
• Theory of change
• Study design
• Evaluation design
• Sampling
• Endline measures
• Gender inte...
Findings: Demographics
23 Studies
• 11 accommodating
• 12 transformative
Primarily in:
• sub-Saharan Africa
• South Asia
S...
Findings: Theory of Change
9 papers (39 percent)
explicitly discussed a
theory of change (ToC)
• Social Learning Theory
• ...
Findings: Study Design
Methods
• 61% (n= 14) quantitative
• 13% (n= 3) qualitative
• 26% (n=6) mixed methods
Sampling
• 87...
Findings: Gender Integration
Data collection
• Same-sex interviewers
• Time/place
Data analysis—sex
disaggreation
• 12 stu...
Findings: Measures
70 percent of
evaluations reported
including at least one
specific gender-
related outcome
• Only two s...
Conclusion
Mixed methods
Gender integration throughout
study design
Gender-sensitive measures
Photo by Kim Tyo-Dickerson
This presentation was produced with the support of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) under th...
Próxima SlideShare
Cargando en…5
×

Evaluations of Gender-Integrated Reproductive Health Interventions: A Review of Measures and Designs

497 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Presented by Brittany Schriver Iskarpatyoti at the 2016 AEA conference.

Publicado en: Salud y medicina
  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Evaluations of Gender-Integrated Reproductive Health Interventions: A Review of Measures and Designs

  1. 1. Evaluations of Gender-Integrated Reproductive Health Interventions: A Review of Measures and Designs Brittany Schriver Iskarpatyoti, MPH MEASURE Evaluation University of North Carolina, Chapel HiIl October 26, 2016 American Evaluation Association Conference Photo: David Snyder, ICRW
  2. 2. Outline • Background • Study methods • Summary of findings • Conclusion
  3. 3. Background Gender inequality is associated with poor health outcomes • Higher child mortality, stunting, and wasting • Lower maternal health care utilization, higher maternal mortality • Higher risky sex behavior • Gender-based violence (GBV) Gender norms and expectations affect family planning
  4. 4. Aim To conduct a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on evaluations of gender-integrated RH programs with regard to: • Study design • Gender considerations in data collection and analysis • Gender measures
  5. 5. Methods Nested within larger systematic review of peer-reviewed articles • English-language • LMIC • January 1, 2008—June 30, 2013 • Evaluation • Outcome: RMNCH, HIV and other STIs, GBV, TB, universal health care • Gender-aware intervention Electronic database, sourced bibliography, organizational and conference website searches n=2,450 Titles reviewed and excluded n=709 Abstracts reviewed and excluded n=1545 Final peer-reviewed articles included in broader review n=99 Peer-reviewed and grey literature included in broader systematic review n=196 Grey literature excluded n=97 Abstracts reviewed n=1,741 Articles with RH as a primary outcome n=23
  6. 6. Methods 34 point futura and copy • 24 point futura and copy 34 point gill sans mt and copy • 24 point gill sans mt and copy Source: Interagency Gender Working Group (IGWG). 2013.
  7. 7. Methods Abstracted data: • Theory of change • Study design • Evaluation design • Sampling • Endline measures • Gender integration • Data collection • Data analysis • Outcome measure Photo by Arundati Muralidharan
  8. 8. Findings: Demographics 23 Studies • 11 accommodating • 12 transformative Primarily in: • sub-Saharan Africa • South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 39% South Asia 26% Latin America and the Caribbean 18% Middle East and North Africa 13% East Asia and the Pacific 4%
  9. 9. Findings: Theory of Change 9 papers (39 percent) explicitly discussed a theory of change (ToC) • Social Learning Theory • Theory of Reasoned Action • Health Belief Model • Information-motivation- behavioral skills (IMB) model • Self-defined ToC Malawi male motivator project used the IMB model to impact FP use and couples’ communication.
  10. 10. Findings: Study Design Methods • 61% (n= 14) quantitative • 13% (n= 3) qualitative • 26% (n=6) mixed methods Sampling • 87% (n= 20) basic sampling information • 35% (n= 8) discussed power/calculations Endline • 17% (n= 4) included multiple endlines • 3 accommodating • 1 transformative 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Accomodating Transformative Study Designs Qual Quant Mixed
  11. 11. Findings: Gender Integration Data collection • Same-sex interviewers • Time/place Data analysis—sex disaggreation • 12 studies collected data from only one sex • 9 disaggregated data by sex • 2 no sex disaggregation
  12. 12. Findings: Measures 70 percent of evaluations reported including at least one specific gender- related outcome • Only two studies used validated gender scales/indices Common Gender RH Measures Express favorable/positive attitudes towards healthy sexuality Women's increased decision-making power Attitudes towards male participation/support Increased support (emotional, instrumental, family planning, or general support) from partners or community Increased gender-equitable attitudes and beliefs
  13. 13. Conclusion Mixed methods Gender integration throughout study design Gender-sensitive measures Photo by Kim Tyo-Dickerson
  14. 14. This presentation was produced with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of MEASURE Evaluation cooperative agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004. MEASURE Evaluation is implemented by the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with ICF International; John Snow, Inc.; Management Sciences for Health; Palladium; and Tulane University. Views expressed are not necessarily those of USAID or the United States government. www.measureevaluation.org

×