Gender perspective in COVID-19. SESPAS Report 2022.

We failed to adequately launch a gender transformative response to COVID-19 pandemic, data by sex on a variety of indicators for most countries are hard to find. Some symptoms reported as common of COVID-19 infection, are more prominent in men, while others are more prominent in women, one cannot with certainty exclude that some of the differences observed could be due to gender bias in the management of cases in health services. The gender implications of the pandemic reach wide and far. Inequalities can be further aggravated as sex and gender intersect with other axes of inequality. The SAGER guidelines exemplify an effort to improve reporting of sex and gender dimensions and encouraging researchers to integrate these aspects in the research design. these observations and emerging evidence about the persistent gender-blind approach to COVID-19 is a wake-up call to change course. National Gender Equality Institutions can be central in ensuring gender matters are considered in government responses. COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to reverse the trend and take action to apply an intersectional feminist approach to global health that enables a just and equal world where everyone's health and wellbeing matter.

Resolving sex and gender bias in COVID-19 vaccines R&D and beyond.

The influence of sex and gender in immune response and vaccine outcomes is established in many disease areas, including in COVID-19. Yet, there are notable gaps in the consideration of sex and gender in the analysis and reporting of COVID-19 vaccines clinical trial data. The push for stronger sex and gender integration in vaccines science should be championed by all researchers and stakeholders across the R&D and access ecosystem - not just gender experts. This requires joint action on the tactical framing of customized value propositions (based on stakeholder motivations), the stronger enforcement of existing regulation, tools, and commitments, and aligning the overall agenda to parallel calls on intersectionality, equity diversity and inclusion.

A Systematic Review of the Sex and Gender Reporting in COVID-19 Clinical Trials.

Sex and gender have implications for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and adverse effects from the vaccine. As vaccination is one of the key responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital that sex and gender differences be acknowledged, measured, and analysed in clinical research. Here, we systematically review published COVID-19 vaccine trials, both interventional and observational, to assess the quality of reporting of sex and gender. Of the 75 clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines included in this review, only 24% presented their main outcome data disaggregated by sex, and only 13% included any discussion of the implications of their study for women and men. Considering the sex differences in adverse events after vaccination, and the gendered aspects of vaccine hesitancy, these oversights in clinical research on vaccines have implications for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and for wider public health.

An Invitation to a Feminist Approach to Global Health Data

The notable gendered socioeconomic, health, and human rights implications of COVID-19 have sparked a renewed conversation on gender data gaps and the risks of gender-blind responses that ignore structural determinants of health and undermine social justice goals. Higher mortality among men, disproportionate social, economic, and health effects on ethnic and racial minorities, high infection rates among the predominantly female health workforce, the rise in violence against women and people of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities, the heavy burden of unpaid care on women, and diminished access to essential services such as sexual and reproductive health services are some of the factors that bring to the fore the urgency of capturing disparities and delivering a gender transformative and equitable response to the pandemic. Delivering accessible, affordable, and equitable health care for all requires policies and strategies that are grounded in high-quality reliable data and are "conscious of the need to address the social determinants of health, including those related to gender, income, education, ability, conflict and ethnicity.

The pitfalls of modelling the effects of COVID-19 on gender-based violence: lessons learnt and ways forward.

Since early 2020, global stakeholders have highlighted the significant gendered consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including increases in the risk of gender-based violence (GBV). Researchers have sought to inform the pandemic response through a diverse set of methodologies, including early efforts modelling anticipated increases in GBV. For example, in April 2020, a highly cited modelling effort by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and partners projected headline global figures of 31 million additional cases of intimate partner violence due to 6 months of lockdown, and an additional 13 million child marriages by 2030. In this paper, we discuss the rationale for using modelling to make projections about GBV, and use the projections released by UNFPA to draw attention to the assumptions and biases underlying model-based projections. We raise five key critiques: (1) reducing complex issues to simplified, linear cause-effect relationships, (2) reliance on a small number of studies to generate global estimates, (3) assuming that the pandemic results in the complete service disruption for existing interventions, (4) lack of clarity in indicators used and sources of estimates, and (5) failure to account for margins of uncertainty. We argue that there is a need to consider the motivations and consequences of using modelling data as a planning tool for complex issues like GBV, and conclude by suggesting key considerations for policymakers and practitioners in using and commissioning such projections.

Research in forced displacement: Guidance for a feminist and decolonial approach

The COVID-19 pandemic has deepened inequities and undermined health, human rights, and gender equality for forcibly displaced populations. The ongoing pandemic has also exposed persisting power hierarchies between researchers and forcibly displaced populations. These populations experience power asymmetries in their position as the so-called beneficiaries of humanitarian research and action, and are often excluded from participation in decision making about the research intended to benefit their communities. Forcibly displaced women and girls are consistently categorised as vulnerable and needing protection or rescuing, which takes away their agency and power of action, while risking exploitation or abuse by the same humanitarian actors that supposedly aim to protect them. We believe that applying a feminist lens is not merely about demolishing problematic structures, but also about collaboratively building up new ones for a more just world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)