Journal Article
29 Jul 2020
35 views

Gender-transformative programming with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights: a systematic review of intervention studies

BMJ Global Health Eimear Ruane-McAteer, Kathryn Gillespie, Avni Amin, Ă...+5 more
BMJ Global Health
Eimear Ruane-McAteer, Kathryn Gillespie, Avni Amin, Áine Aventin, Martin Robinson, Jennifer Hanratty, Rajat Khosla, Maria Lohan
Global
15 mins
1 download
Download article
What you'll learn
Gender-transformative approaches to SRHR services

There is consistent evidence supporting the benefits of incorporating men and boys into sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services, but there is less consensus about the most effective ways to do so. This systematic review analysed interventions across all WHO SRHR dimensions that engaged men and boys and were gender-transformative – meaning they addressed the structural factors affecting gender biases in SRHR.

How to incorporate men and boys into SRHR services
What worked
Effective SRHR programs tended to be delivered to both men and women, either separately or together, were implemented in community settings, utilised trained facilitator and peer mentors, and lasted longer than three months.
What didn't work
Initiatives rarely addressed gender inequality at the policy level, instead focusing on gender norms within individuals or groups. Hence, approaches to address gender inequality in SRHR at the structural level involving men and boys requires further research. There were also moderate to high risks of bias in almost all analysed studies, suggesting the need for high quality methodology and evaluation within this domain in the future. Furthermore, there is a scarcity of gender-transformative studies engaging men and boys that focus on the prevention of unsafe abortions and SRHR in disease outbreaks like Zika.
An image of a man holding up a child in the air.

The central question going forward is not whether or not to engage men and boys in SRHR, but how to do so in ways that do no harm, promote gender equality and health for all and are scientifically rigorous.

Key Takeaways
1
Multi-component activities had better outcomes
Multi-component activities had better outcomes
Multi-component activities, specifically across education, persuasion, modelling and enablement approaches, proved promising for successful behavioural change interventions.
2
Programming must target all levels
Programming must target all levels
There is a need for multi-level programming that engages not only target groups and individuals, but those at the community and structural levels also, in order to enable the adoption of egalitarian gender norms and practices. Programmes implemented in community settings also showed positive outcomes, further highlighting the need to involve those at a community level.
3
Incorporate men and women in programming efforts
Incorporate men and women in programming efforts
It was found that successful programmes targeted both men and women, either in separate or mixed sex groupings.
4
Programmes with a minimum of three months had greater results
Programmes with a minimum of three months had greater results
Activities facilitated by trained staff and peer mentors with a duration longer than three months showed more positive outcomes than those with a shorter duration.
5
More research is needed
More research is needed
It was rare for initiatives to address gender inequality at the policy level, instead of looking at gender norms within individuals or groups. Hence, approaches to address gender inequality in SRHR at the structural level involving men and boys requires further research.

    We would love to know
    How useful was this resource?
    Not at all
    1
    Very useful
    Could you tell us...
    What would make it more useful?
    We'll share it with them for you
    Who else would find this useful?
    + Add email here
    Next

    Affiliations
    1. Eimear Ruane-McAteer- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    2. Kathryn Gillespie, Áine Aventin, Martin Robinson, Maria Lohan- School of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
    3. Avni Amin, Rajat Khosla- Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneve, Switzerland
    4. Jennifer Hanratty- Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
    Toolkit
    14 Jun 2016
    27 views
    A tool for strengthening gender-sensitive national HIV and Sexual and Reproductive Health monitoring and evaluation systems
    Report
    09 May 2018
    26 views
    Accelerate progress—sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: report of the Guttmacher–Lancet Commission
    Policy Brief
    10 Jan 2018
    30 views
    WHO recommendations on adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights
    Journal Article
    17 Dec 2018
    21 views
    Opportunities for linking research to policy: lessons learned from implementation research in sexual and reproductive health within the ANSER network