Search

This article reviews the state of the literature on the politics of global health governance and associated political dynamics of actors involved in this issue space. We identify seven eras in the field, beginning with the period of empire and colonialism and ending with the COVID-19 outbreak. The field of global health has long had a focus on infectious disease, often rooted within a state-centered approach to transnational global health problems with recurrent debates about whether and how restrictions on trade and travel should be imposed in the wake of disease outbreaks. This statist focus is in tension with more cosmopolitan visions of global health, which require broader health system strengthening. In the mid-2000s, a golden age emerged with the influx of new financing and political attention to addressing HIV/AIDS and malaria, as well as reducing the risk posed by infectious disease outbreaks to economies of the Global North. Despite increased awareness of noncommunicable diseases and the importance of health systems, events of recent years (including but not limited to the COVID-19 outbreak) reinforced the centrality of states to global health efforts and the primacy of infectious diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During health emergencies, neglect of gender experiences and needs can compromise the outbreak response. Ebola in West Africa and Zika in Latin America had gendered effects that were evident during the crises, yet governments and international organizations failed to prioritize a gender-inclusive response. There is the same risk that gender-inclusive responses and knowledge will continue to be neglected during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we examine the drivers of gender exclusion in health emergency response. We ask: where can we locate institutional responsibility for taking gender seriously to inform and improve sustainable disease control? The article addresses this question by turning to feminist institutional theory to explain why gender inclusion in decision-making processes is vital for effective response and post-crisis recovery. We argue that the institutional responsibility to recognize gender within the global health emergency regime lies with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has neglected to mainstream gender in the policies and practices that it promotes for the prevention and detection of, and response to, infectious disease outbreaks. WHO is in a position to support gender-inclusive practices, but this requires the technical agency to recognize the value of having a gender-inclusive framework to inform outbreak response, financial models, and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to answer the question of how women experienced the effects of the health measures including the gender-based lockdown and only being able to leave the house with an identity card adopted during covid-19 in Panama, especially as regards paid and unpaid work. The in-depth interview was used as a methodological tool, which was administered to key informants: leaders of women's, trade union and lgbti+ organizations, state officials and staff members of international organizations. Transcripts were analyzed on the basis of feminist academic bibliography together with the legislation, reports, and statistical data. It was thought that the government adopted measures that failed to consider gender inequality, which had effects on the lives of women, such as overburdening them and making work in the home and that of vulnerable women invisible. It also increased their paid workload, insecurity, and economic uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State-enforced curtailment of mobility – through social distancing and national or subnational lockdowns – has become a key tool to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Panama instituted a sex-segregated mobility policy to limit people's circulation whereby women were allowed to leave the home for essential services on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; and men on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Through a retrospective analysis of Global Positioning System (GPS) data, this paper presents an overview of aggregate mobility patterns in Panama following the policy implementation. The paper looks at relative mobility for women and men, examining differences by volume and type of movement. The results identify lower visits to all community location categories on women-mobility days; however, we find no statistically significant difference in aggregate mobility to workplaces. The results discuss the implications of these findings and the ethical questions raised regarding the use of sex and gender identity in COVID-19 policies. HIGHLIGHTS Google mobility data provide a novel opportunity to examine population movement during lockdowns. Panamanian men appear less strict than women with stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 lockdown. Lockdown policies may restrict women's public participation. Public domestic activities may hold new value and inform household bargaining during COVID-19. Policies based on government-indicated sex reproduce inequalities for non-binary individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies and public health efforts have not addressed the gendered impacts of disease outbreaks.[1] The response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears no different. Although sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 show equal numbers of cases between men and women so far, there seem to be sex differences in mortality and vulnerability to the disease.[2] Emerging evidence suggests that more men than women are dying, potentially due to sex-based immunological[3] or gendered differences, such as patterns and prevalence of smoking.[4] However, current sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, cautioning against early assumptions. Experience from past outbreaks shows the importance of incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts to improve the effectiveness of health interventions and promote gender and health equity goals. [Extracted from the article]

The Bangladesh government issued a lockdown throughout the country from March–May 2020 in response to the COVID-19. The sudden lockdown caused economic ruptures across the country due to job loss. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the outbreak through 40 in-depth interviews with men and women living in three Dhaka informal settlements from January to November 2021 to identify gaps to mitigate negative downstream effects of global pandemic policies. In this paper, we explore the critical importance of social networks as coping mechanisms for those who lost livelihood due to COVID-19 lockdown. Due to the congested living conditions in informal settlements, many established residents foster close, trusting relationships, and a strong sense of community. Formal and informal networks in urban slums, whether reciprocal or strategic, played an integral role as a way of coping during times of scarcity. We found limited analysis in public health literature on the resilience of these social networks and its impact on health and wellbeing. Our paper attempts to unpack the ways our respondents drew on their own social networks to combat the socio-economic and emotional health challenges brought on by a lack of adequate formalized support as part of the pandemic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender norms, roles and relations differentially affect women, men, and non-binary individuals' vulnerability to disease. Outbreak response measures also have immediate and long-term gendered effects. However, gender-based analysis of outbreaks and responses is limited by lack of data and little integration of feminist analysis within global health scholarship. Recognising these barriers, this paper applies a gender matrix methodology, grounded in feminist political economy approaches, to evaluate the gendered effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response in four case studies: China, Hong Kong, Canada, and the UK. Through a rapid scoping of documentation of the gendered effects of the outbreak, it applies the matrix framework to analyse findings, identifying common themes across the case studies: financial discrimination, crisis in care, and unequal risks and secondary effects. Results point to transnational structural conditions which put women on the front lines of the pandemic at work and at home while denying them health, economic and personal security – effects that are exacerbated where racism and other forms of discrimination intersect with gender inequities. Given that women and people living at the intersections of multiple inequities are made additionally vulnerable by pandemic responses, intersectional feminist responses should be prioritised at the beginning of any crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators focus on public health outcomes (such as infections, case fatalities, and vaccination rates), health system capacity, and/or the effects of the pandemic on the economy, yet this avoids more political questions regarding how responses were mobilized. Pandemic preparedness country rankings have been called into question due to their inability to predict COVID-19 response and outcomes, and COVID-19 response indicators have ignored one of the most well documented secondary effects of the pandemic – its disproportionate effects on women. This paper analyzes pandemic preparedness and response indicators from a feminist perspective to understand how indicators might consider the secondary effects of the pandemic on women and other equity deserving groups. Following a discussion of the tensions that exist between feminist methodologies and the reliance on indicators by policymakers in preparing and responding to health emergencies, we assess the strengths and weakness of current pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators. The risk with existing pandemic preparedness and response indicators is that they give only limited attention to secondary effects of pandemics and inequities in terms of who is disproportionately affected. There is an urgent need to reconceptualize what 'successful' pandemic preparedness and response entails, moving beyond epidemiological and economic measurements. We suggest how efforts to design COVID response indicators on gender inclusion could inform pandemic preparedness and associated indicators. • A feminist perspective on debates about the use of indicators in global health. • Pandemic preparedness and response indicators consideration of gender is limited. • COVID-19 has led to the development of innovative gender-based approaches. • These can be built upon through greater integration of feminist approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]