Political challenges to prioritizing gender in global health organisations.


Journal

Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Historique:
entrez: 8 4 2020
pubmed: 8 4 2020
medline: 16 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Many global health organisations have adopted formal strategies to integrate gender in their programming. In practice, few prioritise the issue. Institutions with considerable global power therefore largely overlook fundamental drivers of adverse health outcomes: gender inequality and harmful gender norms. We analyse the factors shaping attention to gender in organisations involved in global health governance. Drawing on scholarship from the fields of organisational behavior and management, sociology, international relations and the policy process, we undertook a thematic analysis of peer-reviewed scholarship and organisational documents. We also conducted 20 semi-structured interviews over Skype with individuals working at the cross-section of gender and health. In seeking to reform the policies and practices of global health organisations, gender proponents confront patriarchal organisational cultures, hostile political environments and an issue that is difficult to address as it requires upsetting existing power structures. Proponents also face three linked challenges internal to their own networks. First, there is little cohesion among champions themselves, as they are fragmented into multiple networks. Second, proponents differ on the nature of the problem and solutions, including whether reducing gender inequality or addressing harmful gender norms is the primary goal, the role of men in gender initiatives, which health issues to prioritise, and even the value of proponent cohesion. Third, there are disagreements among proponents on how to convey the problem. Some advance an instrumental case, while others believe that it should be portrayed as a human rights issue and using any other argument undermines that fundamental justification. Prospects for building more gender-responsive global health organisations will depend in part on the ability of proponents to address these disagreements and develop strategies for negotiating difficult organisational cultures and political environments.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Many global health organisations have adopted formal strategies to integrate gender in their programming. In practice, few prioritise the issue. Institutions with considerable global power therefore largely overlook fundamental drivers of adverse health outcomes: gender inequality and harmful gender norms. We analyse the factors shaping attention to gender in organisations involved in global health governance.
METHODS METHODS
Drawing on scholarship from the fields of organisational behavior and management, sociology, international relations and the policy process, we undertook a thematic analysis of peer-reviewed scholarship and organisational documents. We also conducted 20 semi-structured interviews over Skype with individuals working at the cross-section of gender and health.
RESULTS RESULTS
In seeking to reform the policies and practices of global health organisations, gender proponents confront patriarchal organisational cultures, hostile political environments and an issue that is difficult to address as it requires upsetting existing power structures. Proponents also face three linked challenges internal to their own networks. First, there is little cohesion among champions themselves, as they are fragmented into multiple networks. Second, proponents differ on the nature of the problem and solutions, including whether reducing gender inequality or addressing harmful gender norms is the primary goal, the role of men in gender initiatives, which health issues to prioritise, and even the value of proponent cohesion. Third, there are disagreements among proponents on how to convey the problem. Some advance an instrumental case, while others believe that it should be portrayed as a human rights issue and using any other argument undermines that fundamental justification.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Prospects for building more gender-responsive global health organisations will depend in part on the ability of proponents to address these disagreements and develop strategies for negotiating difficult organisational cultures and political environments.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32257162
doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.010702
pii: jogh-10-010702
pmc: PMC7101082
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

010702

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: The authors completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.

Références

Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):2550-2562
pubmed: 31155276
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Oct 1;32(8):1161-1173
pubmed: 28582532
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):010306
pubmed: 28400949
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):119-124
pubmed: 27717613
Lancet. 2017 Feb 11;389(10069):602
pubmed: 28126334
Gend Med. 2012 Jun;9(3):180-186.e3
pubmed: 22304976
Acad Med. 2015 May;90(5):565-8
pubmed: 25406609
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Jul 1;90(7):478-478A
pubmed: 22807588
Global Health. 2017 May 12;13(1):26
pubmed: 28494775
Nature. 2013 Mar 7;495(7439):22-4
pubmed: 23467149
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Jun;5(6):e565-e566
pubmed: 28495255
Glob Public Health. 2008;3 Suppl 1:121-42
pubmed: 19288347
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:i74-86
pubmed: 26253698
BMJ. 2001 Nov 3;323(7320):1061-3
pubmed: 11691769
Lancet. 2019 Jun 15;393(10189):2440-2454
pubmed: 31155275
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Aug;3(8):e487-e495
pubmed: 26187491
Lancet. 2017 Jun 24;389(10088):2469
pubmed: 28656894
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:i110-23
pubmed: 27067141
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:i3-16
pubmed: 26318679
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:i60-73
pubmed: 26405157
Lancet. 2007 Oct 13;370(9595):1370-9
pubmed: 17933652
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:i17-32
pubmed: 26282859
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Feb 08;6(4):183-189
pubmed: 28812801

Auteurs

Yusra Ribhi Shawar (YR)

Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of International Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., USA.

Jeremy Shiffman (J)

Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of International Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH