Dataset Information

Reaching substantive female representation among decision-makers: A qualitative research study of gender-related experiences from the health sector in Mozambique.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Achieving significant female representation in government at decision-making levels has been identified as a key step towards achieving gender equality. In 2015, women held 39.6% of parliamentary seats in Mozambique, which is above the benchmark of 30% that has been suggested as the turning point for minority representation to move from token status to having a sizable impact. We undertook a study to identify gender-related barriers and facilitators to improving women-centered policies in the health sector.

Methods

We conducted in-depth interviews with 39 individuals (32 women, 7 men) involved at a senior level in policy making or implementation of woman-centric policies within the Mozambique Ministry of Health and affiliated institutions. We used a semi-structured interview guide that included questions on difficulties and facilitating factors encountered in the policy making process, and the perceived role of gender in this process. We used both deductive and inductive analysis approaches, starting with a set of pre-identified themes and expanding this to include themes that emerged during coding.

Results

Our data suggest two main findings: (1) the women who participated in our study generally do not report feeling discrimination in the workplace and (2) senior health sector perceive women to be more personally attuned to women-centric issues than men. Within our specific sample, we found little to suggest that gender discrimination is a problem professionally for female decision-makers in Mozambique. However, these findings should be contextualized using an intersectional lens with recognition of the important difference between descriptive versus substantive female representation, and whether "percentage of women" is truly the best metric for gaging commitment to gender equality at the policy making level.

Conclusions

Mozambique's longstanding significant representation of women may have led to creating an environment that leads to positive experiences for female decision-makers in the government. However, while the current level of female representation should be celebrated, it does not negate the need for continued focus on female representation in decision-making positions.

SUBMITTER: Sawadogo-Lewis T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6237335 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reaching substantive female representation among decision-makers: A qualitative research study of gender-related experiences from the health sector in Mozambique.

Sawadogo-Lewis Talata T Cane Réka Maulide RM Morgan Rosemary R Qiu Mary M Magaço Amilcar A Ngale Kátia K Roberton Timothy T

PloS one 20181115 11

<h4>Background</h4>Achieving significant female representation in government at decision-making levels has been identified as a key step towards achieving gender equality. In 2015, women held 39.6% of parliamentary seats in Mozambique, which is above the benchmark of 30% that has been suggested as the turning point for minority representation to move from token status to having a sizable impact. We undertook a study to identify gender-related barriers and facilitators to improving women-centered ...[more]

PMID: 30439988

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic response has demonstrated the interconnectedness of individuals, organizations, and other entities jointly contributing to the production of community health. This response has involved stakeholders from numerous sectors who have been faced with new decisions, objectives, and constraints. We examined the cross-sector organizational decision landscape that formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina.MethodsWe conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with 44 organizational decision-makers representing nine sectors in North Carolina between October 2020 and January 2021 to understand the decision-making landscape within the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. In line with a complexity/systems thinking lens, we defined the decision landscape as including decision-maker roles, key decisions, and interrelationships involved in producing community health. We used network mapping and conventional content analysis to analyze transcribed interviews, identifying relationships between stakeholders and synthesizing key themes.ResultsDecision-maker roles were characterized by underlying tensions between balancing organizational mission with employee/community health and navigating organizational vs. individual responsibility for reducing transmission. Decision-makers' roles informed their perspectives and goals, which influenced decision outcomes. Key decisions fell into several broad categories, including how to translate public health guidance into practice; when to institute, and subsequently loosen, public health restrictions; and how to address downstream social and economic impacts of public health restrictions. Lastly, given limited and changing information, as well as limited resources and expertise, the COVID-19 response required cross-sector collaboration, which was commonly coordinated by local health departments who had the most connections of all organization types in the resulting network map.ConclusionsBy documenting the local, cross-sector decision landscape that formed in response to COVID-19, we illuminate the impacts different organizations may have on information/misinformation, prevention behaviors, and, ultimately, health. Public health researchers and practitioners must understand, and work within, this complex decision landscape when responding to COVID-19 and future community health challenges.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceuticals are an integral component of health care systems worldwide, thus, regulatory weaknesses in governance of the pharmaceutical system negatively impact health outcomes especially in developing countries 1. Nigeria is one of a number of countries whose pharmaceutical system has been impacted by corruption and has struggled to curtail the production and trafficking of substandard drugs. In 2001, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) underwent an organizational restructuring resulting in reforms to reduce counterfeit drugs and better regulate pharmaceuticals 2. Despite these changes, there is still room for improvement. This study assessed the perceived level of transparency and potential vulnerability to corruption that exists in four essential areas of Nigeria's pharmaceutical sector: registration, procurement, inspection (divided into inspection of ports and of establishments), and distribution.MethodsStandardized questionnaires were adapted from the World Health Organization assessment tool and used in semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the public and private pharmaceutical system. The responses to the questions were tallied and converted to scores on a numerical scale where lower scores suggested greater vulnerability to corruption and higher scores suggested lower vulnerability.ResultsThe overall score for Nigeria's pharmaceutical system was 7.4 out of 10, indicating a system that is marginally vulnerable to corruption. The weakest links were the areas of drug registration and inspection of ports. Analysis of the qualitative results revealed that the perceived level of corruption did not always match the qualitative evidence.ConclusionDespite the many reported reforms instituted by NAFDAC, the study findings suggest that facets of the pharmaceutical system in Nigeria remain fairly vulnerable to corruption. The most glaring deficiency seems to be the absence of conflict of interest guidelines which, if present and consistently administered, limit the promulgation of corrupt practices. Other major contributing factors are the inconsistency in documentation of procedures, lack of public availability of such documentation, and inadequacies in monitoring and evaluation. What is most critical from this study is the identification of areas that still remain permeable to corruption and, perhaps, where more appropriate checks and balances are needed from the Nigerian government and the international community.

Project description:BackgroundContinued improvements in occupational health can only be ensured if decisions regarding the implementation and continuation of occupational health and safety interventions (OHS interventions) are based on the best available evidence. To ensure that this is the case, scientific evidence should meet the needs of decision-makers. As a first step in bridging the gap between the economic evaluation literature and daily practice in occupational health, this study aimed to provide insight into the occupational health decision-making process and information needs of decision-makers.MethodsAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted with a purposeful sample of occupational health decision-makers in the Ontario healthcare sector. Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted to explore the process by which occupational health decisions are made and the importance given to the financial implications of OHS interventions. Twenty-five structured telephone interviews were conducted to explore the sources of information used during the decision-making process, and decision-makers' knowledge on economic evaluation methods. In-depth interview data were analyzed according to the constant comparative method. For the structured telephone interviews, summary statistics were prepared.ResultsThe occupational health decision-making process generally consists of three stages: initiation stage, establishing the need for an intervention; pre-implementation stage, developing an intervention and its business case in order to receive senior management approval; and implementation and evaluation stage, implementing and evaluating an intervention. During this process, information on the financial implications of OHS interventions was found to be of great importance, especially the employer's costs and benefits. However, scientific evidence was rarely consulted, sound ex-post program evaluations were hardly ever performed, and there seemed to be a need to advance the economic evaluation skill set of decision-makers.ConclusionsFinancial information is particularly important at the front end of implementation decisions, and can be a key deciding factor of whether to go forward with a new OHS intervention. In addition, it appears that current practice in occupational health in the healthcare sector is not solidly grounded in evidence-based decision-making and strategies should be developed to improve this.

Project description:ImportanceA growing body of literature has been developed with the goal of attempting to understand the experiences of female surgeons. While it has helped to address inequities and promote important programmatic improvements, work remains to be done.ObjectiveTo explore how practicing male and female surgeons' experiences with gender compare across 5 qualitative/quantitative domains: career aspirations, gender-based discrimination, mentor-mentee relationships, perceived barriers, and recommendations for change.Design, setting, and participantsThis national concurrent mixed-methods survey of Fellows of the American College of Surgeons (FACS) compared differences between male and female FACS. Differences between female FACS and female members of the Association of Women Surgeons (AWS) were also explored. A randomly selected 3:1 sample of US-based male and female FACS was surveyed between January and June 2020. Female AWS members were surveyed in May 2020.ExposureSelf-reported gender.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported experiences with career aspirations (quantitative), gender-based discrimination (quantitative), mentor-mentee relationships (quantitative), perceived barriers (qualitative), and recommendations for change (qualitative).ResultsA total of 2860 male FACS (response rate: 38.1% [2860 of 7500]) and 1070 female FACS (response rate: 42.8% [1070 of 2500]) were included, in addition to 536 female AWS members. Demographic characteristics were similar between randomly selected male and female FACS, with the notable exception that female FACS were less likely to be married (720 [67.3%] vs 2561 [89.5%]; nonresponse-weighted P < .001) and have children (660 [61.7%] vs 2600 [90.9%]; P < .001). Compared with female FACS, female AWS members were more likely to be younger and hold additional graduate degrees (320 [59.7%] were married; 238 [44.4%] had children). FACS of both genders acknowledged positive and negative aspects of dealing with gender in a professional setting, including shared experiences of gender-based harassment, discrimination, and blame. Female FACS were less likely to have had gender-concordant mentors. They were more likely to emphasize the importance of gender when determining career aspirations and prioritizing future mentor-mentee relationships. Moving forward, female FACS emphasized the importance of avoiding competition among female surgeons. They encouraged male surgeons to acknowledge gender bias and admit their potential role. Male FACS encouraged male and female surgeons to treat everyone the same.Conclusions and relevanceExperiences with gender are not limited to supportive female surgeons. The results of this study emphasize the importance of recognizing the voices of all stakeholders involved when striving to promote workforce diversity and the related need to develop quality improvement/surgical education initiatives that enhance inclusion through open, honest discourse.

Dataset Information

Reaching substantive female representation among decision-makers: A qualitative research study of gender-related experiences from the health sector in Mozambique.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reaching substantive female representation among decision-makers: A qualitative research study of gender-related experiences from the health sector in Mozambique.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets