Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb;8(2):e225-e236.
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30495-4. Epub 2019 Dec 23.

Characteristics of successful programmes targeting gender inequality and restrictive gender norms for the health and wellbeing of children, adolescents, and young adults: a systematic review

Affiliations

Characteristics of successful programmes targeting gender inequality and restrictive gender norms for the health and wellbeing of children, adolescents, and young adults: a systematic review

Jessica K Levy et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Background: In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals and the shifting global burden of disease, this systematic review analyses the evidence from rigorously evaluated programmes that seek to transform the gendered social norms undermining the health and wellbeing of children, adolescents, and young adults. The aim of this study was threefold: to describe the landscape of gender-transformative programmes that attempt to influence health-related outcomes; to identify mechanisms through which successful programmes work; and to highlight where gaps might exist in implementation and evaluation.

Methods: We systematically reviewed rigorous evaluations published between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 1, 2018 of programmes that sought to decrease gender inequalities and transform restrictive gender norms to improve the health and wellbeing of 0-24 year olds. We included rigorously evaluated health programmes that met the Interagency Gender Working Group definition of gender-transformative programming, regardless of where in the world they were implemented and what area of health they focused on.

Findings: Among 22 993 articles identified by our search, 61 evaluations of 59 programmes met review criteria. Programmes were concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa (25 [42%]), south Asia (13 [22%]), and North America (13 [22%]) and mainly measured health indicators related to reproductive health (29 [48%]), violence (26 [43%]), or HIV (18 [30%]). Programmes most frequently focused on improving the individual power of the beneficiaries, rather than working on broader systems of inequality. 45 (74%) of the evaluations measured significant improvements in health-related and gender-related indicators; however, only ten (16%) showed evidence of, or potential for, broader norm change. These ten programmes worked with sectors beyond health, included multiple stakeholders, implemented diversified strategies, and fostered critical awareness and participation among affected community members.

Interpretation: This review can accelerate efforts to improve global health by leading to more strategic investment in programmes that promote gender equality and target restrictive gender norms among young people. Such programmes can lead to a lifetime of improved health and wellbeing by challenging not only attitudes and behaviours related to gender at an early age, but also the gendered systems that surround them.

Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection
Figure 2
Figure 2
Geographical distribution of programmes and the health areas they addressed
Figure 3
Figure 3
Landscape analysis of programmes targeting health-related service utilisation, behaviours, and outcomes by programme activities and the gender-related indicators they measured
Figure 4
Figure 4
Programme operationalisation by region Numbers indicate which regions implemented specific activities.

Comment in

References

    1. WHO Gender, equity and human rights: glossary of terms and tools. https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowledge/glossary/en
    1. Heise L, Greene ME, Opper N. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: framing the challenges to health. Lancet. 2019;393:2440–2454. - PubMed
    1. Pearse R, Connell R. Gender norms and the economy: insights from social research. Fem Econ. 2016;22:30–53.
    1. Campos-Serna J, Ronda-Pérez E, Artazcoz L, Moen BE, Benavides FG. Gender inequalities in occupational health related to the unequal distribution of working and employment conditions: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:57. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crawford M, Popp D. Sexual double standards: a review and methodological critique of two decades of research. J Sex Res. 2003;40:13–26. - PubMed

Publication types