Sites for health rights: Local, national, regional and global

Stuttaford, Maria; Harrington, John; Lewando-Hundt, Gillian

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.038

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They sought greater clarity in defining the concepts of sex and gender and guidance in operationalizing these concepts in the context of systematic reviews. Requests for clarity and guidance were not surprising given that these concepts have been re-defined since the 1970s by Ann Oakley, Nancy Krieger and other researchers and theoreticians, to transcend narrow assumptions of biological determinism in relation to women’s health, and that international research bodies, health organizations, and academic researchers continue to develop analytic frameworks to address sex/gender in more nuanced ways [ 12 , 51 - 53 ]. As some respondents suggested, this involves seeing sex and gender as more than discrete variables or part of a checklist of items to be ‘controlled for’, but as dynamic and entangled biological and social processes that shape human health and cross-cut other health determinants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic review methodology includes the rigorous collection, selection, and evaluation of data in order to synthesize the best available evidence for health practice, health technology assessments, and health policy. Despite evidence that sex and gender matter to health outcomes, data and analysis related to sex and gender are frequently absent in systematic reviews, raising concerns about the quality and applicability of reviews. Few studies have focused on challenges to implementing sex/gender analysis within systematic reviews.MethodsA multidisciplinary group of systematic reviewers, methodologists, biomedical and social science researchers, health practitioners, and other health sector professionals completed an open-ended survey prior to a two-day workshop focused on sex/gender, equity, and bias in systematic reviews. Respondents were asked to identify challenging or ‘thorny’ issues associated with integrating sex and gender in systematic reviews and indicate how they address these in their work. Data were analysed using interpretive description. A summary of the findings was presented and discussed with workshop participants.ResultsRespondents identified conceptual challenges, such as defining sex and gender, methodological challenges in measuring and analysing sex and gender, challenges related to availability of data and data quality, and practical and policy challenges. No respondents discussed how they addressed these challenges, but all proposed ways to address sex/gender analysis in the future.ConclusionsRespondents identified a wide range of interrelated challenges to implementing sex/gender considerations within systematic reviews. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to identify these challenges from the perspectives of those conducting and using systematic reviews. A framework and methods to integrate sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews are in the early stages of development. A number of priority items and collaborative initiatives to guide systematic reviewers in sex/gender analysis are provided, based on the survey results and subsequent workshop discussions. An emerging ‘community of practice’ is committed to enhancing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews by integrating considerations of sex/gender into the review process, with the goals of improving health outcomes and ensuring health equity for all persons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What underlies the difference in these settings is the importance of rights-based claims as complemented by civil society action (London 2004(London , 2007(London , 2008Stuttaford et al 2012a;Haynes et al 2013) and particularly in ways that strengthen the agency of those most vulnerable to violations of their rights (London 2007). Forman's analysis also surfaces the role of social solidarity, which we now examine in more detail, drawing on some of the LN's experiences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then map out the contours of a debate over the nature of the entitlement contained in the right to health, drawing both on our experience through structured reflection and on the literature to problematize the individualist framing of rights in the construction of responsive health systems. We draw also on non-Western philosophical perspectives to argue that a more useful framing of health rights involves foregrounding social solidarity in claims to collective health (Stuttaford et al 2012a), a perspective more consistent with the principles of public health, which emphasize 'collective action by society' as essential to 'the art and science of promoting and protecting good health' (Last 2007). Lastly, we conclude that if claims to the Right to Health are framed as strengthening the collective agency of the most vulnerable, then recognizing the importance of social solidarity within the right to health can be an important strategy for building responsive health systems (Hunt and Backman 2008;Meier et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%