A growing body of research highlights the importance of gendered social determinants of child health, such as maternal education and women's status, for mediating child survival. This narrative review of evidence from diverse low and middle-income contexts (covering the period 1970-May 2012) examines the significance of intra-household bargaining power and process as gendered dimensions of child health and nutrition. The findings focus on two main elements of bargaining: the role of women's decision-making power and access to and control over resources; and the importance of household headship, structure and composition. The paper discusses the implications of these findings in the light of lifecycle and intersectional approaches to gender and health. The relative lack of published intervention studies that explicitly consider gendered intra-household bargaining is highlighted. Given the complex mechanisms through which intra-household bargaining shapes child health and nutrition it is critical that efforts to address gender in health and nutrition programming are thoroughly documented and widely shared to promote further learning and action. There is scope to develop links between gender equity initiatives in areas of adult and adolescent health, and child health and nutrition programming. Child health and nutrition interventions will be more effective, equitable and sustainable if they are designed based on gender-sensitive information and continually evaluated from a gender perspective.
BackgroundIn 2005–06, only 39 % of Indian women delivered in a health facility. Given that deliveries at home increase the risk of maternal mortality, it was in this context in 2005, that the Indian Government implemented the Janani Suraksha Yojana program that incentivizes poor women to give birth in a health facility by providing them with a cash transfer upon discharge. JSY helped raise institutional delivery to 74 % in the eight years since its implementation. Despite the success of the JSY in raising institutional delivery proportions, the large number of beneficiaries (105 million), and the cost of the program, there have been few qualitative studies exploring why women participate (or not) in the program. The objective of this paper was to explore this.MethodsIn March 2013, we conducted 24 individual in-depth interviews with women who delivered within the previous 12 months in two districts of Madhya Pradesh, India. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyze the data.ResultsOur findings suggest that women’s increased participation in the program reflect a shift in the social norm. Drivers of the shift include social pressure from the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) to deliver in a health facility, and a growing individual perception of the importance for ‘safe’ and ‘easy’ delivery which was most likely an expression of the new social norm. While the incentive was an important influence on many women’s choices, others did not perceive it as an important consideration in their decision to deliver in a health facility. Many women reported procedural difficulties to receive the benefit. Retaining the cash incentive was also an issue due to out-of-pocket expenditures incurred at the facility. Non-participation was often unintentional and caused by personal circumstances, poor geographic access or driven by a perception of poor quality of care provided in program facilities.ConclusionsIn summary, while the cash incentive was important for some women in facilitating an institutional birth, the shift in social norm (possibly in part facilitated by the program) and therefore their own perceptions has played a major role in them giving birth in facilities.
ABSTRACTBackground: Globally, disabled people have significant unmet needs in relation to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Disabled women in India face multiple discrimination: social exclusion, lack of autonomy with regard to their SRH, vulnerability to violence, and lack of access to SRH care. While they may face shared challenges, an intersectional perspective suggests that considering disabled women as a uniform and ‘vulnerable’ group is likely to mask multiple differences in their lived experiences. Objective: To explore commonality and heterogeneity in the experiences of disabled women in relation to their SRH needs and rights in Gujarat State, India. Methods: We conducted 22 in-depth qualitative interviews with women between the ages of 18 and 49 with any form of self-identified disability. Intersectionality was used as a lens for analysis and in sampling. Results: Findings explore the experiences of disabled women in a number of different spheres related to decision making and SRH service use. Conclusions: Recognising heterogeneity is critical to inform rights-based approaches to promote SRH and rights for all disabled women. This suggests a need to encourage strategic alliances between social movements for gender equity and SRH and disability rights, in which common interests and agendas can be pursued whilst recognising and respecting differences.
BackgroundIn India a lack of access to emergency obstetric care contributes to maternal deaths. In 2005 Gujarat state launched a public-private partnership (PPP) programme, Chiranjeevi Yojana (CY), under which the state pays accredited private obstetricians a fixed fee for providing free intrapartum care to poor and tribal women. A million women have delivered under CY so far. The participation of private obstetricians in the partnership is central to the programme’s effectiveness. We explored with private obstetricians the reasons and experiences that influenced their decisions to participate in the CY programme.MethodIn this qualitative study we interviewed 24 purposefully selected private obstetricians in Gujarat. We explored their views on the scheme, the reasons and experiences leading up to decisions to participate, not participate or withdraw from the CY, as well as their opinions about the scheme’s impact. We analysed data using the Framework approach.ResultsParticipants expressed a tension between doing public good and making a profit. Bureaucratic procedures and perceptions of programme misuse seemed to influence providers to withdraw from the programme or not participate at all. Providers feared that participating in CY would lower the status of their practices and some were deterred by the likelihood of more clinically difficult cases among eligible CY beneficiaries. Some providers resented taking on what they saw as a state responsibility to provide safe maternity services to poor women. Younger obstetricians in the process of establishing private practices, and those in more remote, ‘less competitive’ areas, were more willing to participate in CY. Some doctors had reservations over the quality of care that doctors could provide given the financial constraints of the scheme.ConclusionsWhile some private obstetricians willingly participate in CY and are satisfied with its functioning, a larger number shared concerns about participation. Operational difficulties and a trust deficit between the public and private health sectors affect retention of private providers in the scheme. Further refinement of the scheme, in consultation with private partners, and trust building initiatives could strengthen the programme. These findings offer lessons to those developing public-private partnerships to widen access to health services for underprivileged groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.