How gender norms affect anemia in select villages in rural Odisha, India: A qualitative study.
Anemia
Gender norms
India
Qualitative
Journal
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.)
ISSN: 1873-1244
Titre abrégé: Nutrition
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8802712
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
21
05
2020
revised:
11
12
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
pubmed:
27
2
2021
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
26
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In India, 50% of women of reproductive age, compared with 23% of men, have iron deficiency anemia. Extant research focuses on biological, not social, determinants of this disparity. The aim of this study was to examine how gender norms may affect anemia prevalence among women in rural India. We conducted 16 focus group discussions (N = 124) with women of reproductive age, husbands, and mothers-in-law and 25 key informant interviews in four villages in Odisha, India. We identified the following themes that help explain how inequitable gender norms exacerbate anemia among women from different castes and tribes: Due to a double burden of work outside the home and completing the majority of unpaid work in the home, women lack time to visit health centers to get tested for anemia and to obtain iron supplements. Women are expected to prioritize the health of their family over their own, thus affecting their access to health care. Women's autonomy to leave the house to seek health care is limited. Men are the primary breadwinners for the family, but often spend their money on alcohol, rather than on iron-rich food for the household. Intra-household food allocation favors men, in-laws, and children, thus women serve their family first, often being left with little food. Anemia reduction interventions need to include examination of the whole social context to successfully increase iron supplement use and iron-rich food intake. Understanding how gender norms contribute to anemia could change the narrative from a biomedical to a social justice issue.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In India, 50% of women of reproductive age, compared with 23% of men, have iron deficiency anemia. Extant research focuses on biological, not social, determinants of this disparity.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to examine how gender norms may affect anemia prevalence among women in rural India.
METHODS
We conducted 16 focus group discussions (N = 124) with women of reproductive age, husbands, and mothers-in-law and 25 key informant interviews in four villages in Odisha, India.
RESULTS
We identified the following themes that help explain how inequitable gender norms exacerbate anemia among women from different castes and tribes: Due to a double burden of work outside the home and completing the majority of unpaid work in the home, women lack time to visit health centers to get tested for anemia and to obtain iron supplements. Women are expected to prioritize the health of their family over their own, thus affecting their access to health care. Women's autonomy to leave the house to seek health care is limited. Men are the primary breadwinners for the family, but often spend their money on alcohol, rather than on iron-rich food for the household. Intra-household food allocation favors men, in-laws, and children, thus women serve their family first, often being left with little food.
CONCLUSION
Anemia reduction interventions need to include examination of the whole social context to successfully increase iron supplement use and iron-rich food intake. Understanding how gender norms contribute to anemia could change the narrative from a biomedical to a social justice issue.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33636419
pii: S0899-9007(21)00021-6
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2021.111159
pmc: PMC8209141
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Iron
E1UOL152H7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111159Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Nutr. 2001 Feb;131(2S-2):676S-688S; discussion 688S-690S
pubmed: 11160598
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208
pubmed: 10591279
Midwifery. 2014 Mar;30(3):e56-63
pubmed: 24246970
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Jun 21;16(1):107
pubmed: 28637477
J Health Popul Nutr. 2017 May 22;36(1):20
pubmed: 28532433
BMC Public Health. 2020 Apr 6;20(1):457
pubmed: 32252698
BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1058-66
pubmed: 22676807
Food Nutr Bull. 2006 Jun;27(2):128-43
pubmed: 16786979
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 7;20(1):203
pubmed: 32033546
Food Nutr Bull. 2016 Jun;37(2):132-43
pubmed: 27009090
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Feb 11;14:21
pubmed: 24512206
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May;78(5):906-12
pubmed: 10821197
Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Mar;45(1):19-41
pubmed: 24615573