IntroductionIn the field of health, numerous frameworks have emerged that advance understandings of the differential impacts of health policies to produce inclusive and socially just health outcomes. In this paper, we present the development of an important contribution to these efforts – an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework.MethodsDeveloped over the course of two years in consultation with key stakeholders and drawing on best and promising practices of other equity-informed approaches, this participatory and iterative IBPA Framework provides guidance and direction for researchers, civil society, public health professionals and policy actors seeking to address the challenges of health inequities across diverse populations. Importantly, we present the application of the IBPA Framework in seven priority health-related policy case studies.ResultsThe analysis of each case study is focused on explaining how IBPA: 1) provides an innovative structure for critical policy analysis; 2) captures the different dimensions of policy contexts including history, politics, everyday lived experiences, diverse knowledges and intersecting social locations; and 3) generates transformative insights, knowledge, policy solutions and actions that cannot be gleaned from other equity-focused policy frameworks.ConclusionThe aim of this paper is to inspire a range of policy actors to recognize the potential of IBPA to foreground the complex contexts of health and social problems, and ultimately to transform how policy analysis is undertaken.

Introduction: In the field of health, numerous frameworks have emerged that advance understandings of the differential impacts of health policies to produce inclusive and socially just health outcomes. In this paper, we present the development of an important contribution to these effortsan Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework. Methods: Developed over the course of two years in consultation with key stakeholders and drawing on best and promising practices of other equity-informed approaches, this participatory and iterative IBPA Framework provides guidance and direction for researchers, civil society, public health professionals and policy actors seeking to address the challenges of health inequities across diverse populations. Importantly, we present the application of the IBPA Framework in seven priority health-related policy case studies. Results: The analysis of each case study is focused on explaining how IBPA: 1) provides an innovative structure for critical policy analysis; 2) captures the different dimensions of policy contexts including history, politics, everyday lived experiences, diverse knowledges and intersecting social locations; and 3) generates transformative insights, knowledge, policy solutions and actions that cannot be gleaned from other equity-focused policy frameworks. Conclusion: The aim of this paper is to inspire a range of policy actors to recognize the potential of IBPA to foreground the complex contexts of health and social problems, and ultimately to transform how policy analysis is undertaken.

BackgroundDespite research demonstrating the potential effectiveness of Telehomecare for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure, broad-scale comprehensive evaluations are lacking. This article discusses the qualitative component of a mixed-method program evaluation of Telehomecare in Ontario, Canada. The objective of the qualitative component was to explore the multi-level factors and processes which facilitate or impede the implementation and adoption of the program across three regions where it was first implemented.MethodsThe study employs a multi-level framework as a conceptual guide to explore the facilitators and barriers to Telehomecare implementation and adoption across five levels: technology, patients, providers, organizations, and structures. In-depth semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations with program stakeholders, as well as a Telehomecare document review were used to elicit key themes. Study participants (n = 89) included patients and/or informal caregivers (n = 39), health care providers (n = 23), technicians (n = 2), administrators (n = 12), and decision makers (n = 13) across three different Local Health Integration Networks in Ontario.ResultsKey facilitators to Telehomecare implementation and adoption at each level of the multi-level framework included: user-friendliness of Telehomecare technology, patient motivation to participate in the program, support for Telehomecare providers, the integration of Telehomecare into broader health service provision, and comprehensive program evaluation. Key barriers included: access-related issues to using the technology, patient language (if not English or French), Telehomecare provider time limitations, gaps in health care provision for patients, and structural barriers to patient participation related to geography and social location.ConclusionsThough Telehomecare has the potential to positively impact patient lives and strengthen models of health care provision, a number of key challenges remain. As such, further implementation and expansion of Telehomecare must involve continuous assessments of what is working and not working with all stakeholders. Increased dialogue, evaluation, and knowledge translation within and across regions to understand the contextual factors influencing Telehomecare implementation and adoption is required. This can inform decision-making that better reflects and addresses the needs of all program stakeholders.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1196-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundUnderstanding sex and gender in health research can improve the quality of scholarship and enhance health outcomes. Funding agencies and academic journals are two key gatekeepers of knowledge production and dissemination, including whether and how sex/gender is incorporated into health research. Though attention has been paid to key issues and practices in accounting for sex/gender in health funding agencies and academic journals, to date, there has been no systematic analysis documenting whether and how agencies and journals require attention to sex/gender, what conceptual explanations and practical guidance are given for such inclusion, and whether existing practices reflect the reality that sex/gender cannot be separated from other axes of inequality.MethodsOur research systematically examines official statements about sex/gender inclusion from 45 national-level funding agencies that fund health research across 36 countries (covering the regions of the EU and associated countries, North America, and Australia) and from ten top-ranking general health (the top five in “science” and the top five in “social science”) and ten sex- and/or gender-related health journals. We explore the extent to which agencies and journals require inclusion of sex/gender considerations and to what extent existing strategies reflect state of the art understandings of sex/gender, including intersectional perspectives.ResultsThe research highlights the following: (a) there is no consistency in whether sex/gender are mentioned in funding and publishing guidelines; (b) there is wide variation in how sex/gender are conceptualized and how researchers are asked to address the inclusion/exclusion of sex/gender in research; (c) funding agencies tend to prioritize male/female equality in research teams and funding outcomes over considerations of sex/gender in research content and knowledge production; and (d) with very few exceptions, agency and journal criteria fail to recognize the complexity of sex/gender, including the intersection of sex/gender with other key factors that shape health.ConclusionsThe conceptualization and integration of sex/gender needs to better capture the interacting and complex factors that shape health—an imperative that can be informed by an intersectional approach. This can strengthen current efforts to advance scientific excellence in the production and reporting of research. We provide recommendations and supporting questions to strengthen consideration of sex/gender in policies and practices of health journals and funding agencies.

Objectives Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of cervical cancer mortality. We aimed to identify what is currently known about barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in LMICs and propose remedial actions. Design This was a systematic review using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We also contacted medical associations and universities for grey literature and checked reference lists of eligible articles for relevant literature published in English between 2010 and 2020. We summarized the findings using a descriptive narrative based on themes identified as levels of the social ecological model. Setting We included studies conducted in LMICs published in English between 2010 and 2020. Participants We included studies that reported on barriers to cervical cancer screening among women 15 years and older, eligible for cervical cancer screening. Results Seventy-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified individual, cultural/traditional and religious, societal, health system, and structural barriers to screening. Lack of knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer in general and of screening were the most frequent individual level barriers. Cultural/traditional and religious barriers included prohibition of screening and unsupportive partners and families, while social barriers were largely driven by community misconceptions. Health system barriers included policy and programmatic factors, and structural barriers were related to geography, education and cost. Underlying reasons for these barriers included limited information about cervical cancer and screening as a preventive strategy, poorly resourced health systems that lacked policies or implemented them poorly, generalised limited access to health services, and gender norms that deprioritize the health needs of women. Conclusion A wide range of barriers to screening were identified across most LMICs. Urgent implementation of clear policies supported by health system capacity for implementation, community wide advocacy and information dissemination, strengthening of policies that support women’s health and gender equality, and targeted further research are needed to effectively address the inequitable burden of cervical cancer in LMICs.

Gender mainstreaming (GM) is an international strategy to advance gender equality. Recently, there has been a shift within GM—recognition that gender interacts with other forms of inequity. There is thus growing attention to intersectionality and how it can complement GM. Although advancing understandings of gender is critical, there is a need for caution. Using examples of international organizations, we argue that intersectionality cannot be an ‘add‐on’ to such efforts, as it does not prioritize gender over other factors. We show how an intersectionality approach necessitates attention to multiple factors to address the complexities of inequity. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract