Measuring gender-based violence risk mitigation in humanitarian settings: results from a comprehensive desk review and systematic mapping

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector.

Design: Systematic mapping and in-depth review.

Data sources: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index)Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019.

Data extraction and synthesis: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas.

Results: A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs.

Conclusions: Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.

Keywords: COVID-19; epidemiology; health & safety; international health services; protocols & guidelines; public health.

Figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis flow diagram of documents at each stage of the search process. *145 was the total number of final documents when counting the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene gender toolkit as one document instead of multiple separate documents.

Figure 2

Types of documents included in the desk review (n=145). The All Tools Extracted bar includes all tools identified (n=112) across all of the other document types. Standalone tools are defined as single tools or instruments, while a toolkit refers to multiple separate tools and other documents packaged together as one resource. Research/evaluations are non-peer reviewed research reports or evaluations. Journal articles include peer-reviewed literature.

Figure 3

Number of documents and tools included in the desk review categorised by the humanitarian sector of focus. The chosen sectors reflect those included in the 2015 IASC GBV Guidelines. Note that many documents and tools were produced by or for more than one sector and are thus counted more than once in the figure. Some documents and tools were designed to be broadly applicable across the humanitarian field. These documents are included in the All Sectors category. CCCM, Camp Coordination and Camp Management; IASC GBV Guidelines; Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action; WASH, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.

Figure 4

Percentage of tools reviewed that suggest inclusion of participatory methods (per sector). CCCM, Camp Coordination and Camp Management; WASH, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.