Looking twice at the gender equity index for public health impact

Background: It has been shown that gender equity has a positive impact on the everyday activities of people (decision making, income allocation, application and observance of norms/rules) which affect their health. Gender equity is also a crucial determinant of health inequalities at national level; thus, monitoring is important for surveillance of women’s and men’s health as well as for future health policy initiatives. The Gender Equity Index (GEI) was designed to show inequity solely towards women. Given that the value under scrutiny is equity, in this paper a modified version of the GEI is proposed, the MGEI, which highlights the inequities affecting both sexes. Methods: Rather than calculating gender gaps by means of a quotient of proportions, gaps in the MGEI are expressed in absolute terms (differences in proportions). The Spearman’s rank coefficient, calculated from country rankings obtained according to both indexes, was used to evaluate the level of concordance between both classifications. To compare the degree of sensitivity and obtain the inequity by the two methods, the variation coefficient of the GEI and MGEI values was calculated. Results: Country rankings according to GEI and MGEI values showed a high correlation (rank coef. = 0.95). The MGEI presented greater dispersion (43.8%) than the GEI (19.27%). Inequity towards men was identified in the education gap (rank coef. = 0.36) when using the MGEI. According to this method, many countries shared the same absolute value for education but with opposite signs, for example Azerbaijan (−0.022) and Belgium (0.022), reflecting inequity towards women and men, respectively. This also occurred in the empowerment gap with the technical and professional job component (Brunei:-0.120 vs. Australia, Canada Iceland and the U.S.A.: 0.120). Conclusion: The MGEI identifies and highlights the different areas of inequities between gender groups. It thus overcomes the shortcomings of the GEI related to the aim for which this latter was created, namely measuring gender equity, and is therefore of great use to policy makers who wish to understand and monitor the results of specific equity policies and to determine the length of time for which these policies should be maintained in order to correct long-standing structural discrimination against women.

Tiempos de equidad de género: descripción de las desigualdades entre comunidades autónomas, España 2006-2014

Objetivo: La equidad de género es un determinante estructural de las desigualdades en salud. Por ello, se pretende visibilizar su evolución en las comunidades autónomas (CC.AA.) desde 2006, previamente a la promulgación de la Ley de Igualdad (2007) y la crisis económica (2008), hasta 2014. Método: Estudio ecológico sobre la equidad de género en las 17 CC.AA. en 2006-2011-2014. Cálculo de: 1) índice de equidad de género modificado (IEGM) de las CC.AA. (0 = equidad, ±1 = inequidad); 2) convergencia interregional y temporal en equidad de género. Resultados: El IEGM de las CC.AA.2014 toma valores negativos próximos a 0 (inequidad desfavorable a las mujeres). No hay convergencia interregional en la equidad de género, pues aumenta la dispersión (2006: 0,1503; 2011: 0,2280; 2014: 0,4964). Tampoco existe convergencia temporal, al no evolucionar mejor las CC.AA. menos equitativas. La brecha de género en actividad económica sigue desfavorable a las mujeres. En 2006-2011 disminuye en todas las CC.AA., y en 2014 aumenta en seis CCAA. La brecha de género en educación tiene valores positivos próximos a 0 (desfavorable a los hombres) en 2006-2011-2014, y en empoderamiento es desfavorable a las mujeres, siendo la dimensión que más pesa en la equidad de género. Se mantiene la dispersión entre CC.AA. en 2006-2014 en actividad económica y educación, y aumenta en empoderamiento. Conclusiones: El contexto de equidad de género alcanzado en las CC.AA. españolas en 2006 se ha perdido durante la crisis económica, al aumentar la desigualdad en la equidad de género entre CC.AA. en 2014. La inequidad de género sigue siendo desfavorable a las mujeres.

Gender sensitivity in national health plans in Latin America and the European Union

Objectives: To evaluate the situation regarding gender sensitivity in national health plans in Latin America and the European Union for the decade 2000–2010. Methods: A systematic search and content analysis of national health plans were carried out within 37 countries. Gender sensitivity, defined as the extent to which a health plan considers gender as a central category and develops measures to reduce any gender-related inequalities, was analysed through an ad hoc checklist. Results: The description of health problems by sex was more frequent than intervention proposals aimed at reducing gender health disparities. The greatest number of specific intervention proposals targeted at overcoming gender-based health inequalities were associated with sexual and/or reproductive health, gender based violence, the working environment and human resources training. Compared to the European Union member states, Latin American health plans were found to be generally more gender sensitive. Conclusions: National health plans are still generally lacking in gender sensitivity. Disparities exist in health policy formulation in favour of men, whilst women's health continues to be identified mainly with reproductive health. If gender sensitivity is not taken into account, efforts to improve the quality of clinical care will be insufficient as gender inequalities will persist.

Gender inequalities in occupational health related to the unequal distribution of working and employment conditions: a systematic review

Introduction: Gender inequalities exist in work life, but little is known about their presence in relation to factors examined in occupation health settings. The aim of this study was to identify and summarize the working and employment conditions described as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health in studies related to occupational health published between 1999 and 2010. Methods: A systematic literature review was undertaken of studies available in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sociological Abstracts, LILACS, EconLit and CINAHL between 1999 and 2010. Epidemiologic studies were selected by applying a set of inclusion criteria to the title, abstract, and complete text. The quality of the studies was also assessed. Selected studies were qualitatively analysed, resulting in a compilation of all differences between women and men in the prevalence of exposure to working and employment conditions and work-related health problems as outcomes. Results: Most of the 30 studies included were conducted in Europe (n=19) and had a cross-sectional design (n=24). The most common topic analysed was related to the exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards (n=8). Employed women had more job insecurity, lower control, worse contractual working conditions and poorer self-perceived physical and mental health than men did. Conversely, employed men had a higher degree of physically demanding work, lower support, higher levels of effort-reward imbalance, higher job status, were more exposed to noise and worked longer hours than women did. Conclusions: This systematic review has identified a set of working and employment conditions as determinants of gender inequalities in occupational health from the occupational health literature. These results may be useful to policy makers seeking to reduce gender inequalities in occupational health, and to researchers wishing to analyse these determinants in greater depth.