TOPLINE SUMMARY
What is a Rapid Review?Our rapid reviews use a variation of the systematic review approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. They take one to two months, depending on the breadth and complexity of the research topic/question(s), the extent of the evidence base and type of analysis required for synthesis.
Background / Aim of Rapid Review The COVID-19 pandemic has led to differential economic, health and social impacts illuminating prevailing gender inequalities (WEN Wales, 2020). This rapid review investigated evidence for effectiveness of interventions to address gender inequalities across the domains of work, health, living standards, personal security, participation, and education.
Extent of the evidence base
21 studies were identified: 7 reviews, 6 commentaries and 8 primary studies
Limited evidence for the effectiveness of identified innovations in minority groups
A lack of evaluation data for educational interventions
A lack of evidence for cost-effectiveness of the identified interventions
14 additional articles were identified in the grey literature but not used to inform findings (apart from the Education domain, where there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence).
Recency of the evidence base
All studies were published in 2020-2021
Summary of findings Some evidence supported interventions/innovations related to work:
Permanent contracts, full-time hours, and national childcare programmes to increase income for women and thereby decrease the existing gender wage gap.
More frequent use of online platforms in the presentation of professional work can reduce gender disparities due to time saved in travel away from home.
Some evidence supported interventions/innovations related to health:
Leadership in digital health companies could benefit from women developing gender-friendly technology that meets the health needs of women.
Create authentic partnerships with black women and female-led organisations to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality (Bray & McLemore, 2021).
Some evidence supported interventions/innovations related to living standards including:
Multi-dimensional care provided to women and their children experiencing homelessness.
Limited evidence supported interventions/innovations related to personal security including:
Specific training of social workers, psychologists and therapists to empower women to use coping strategies and utilise services to gain protection from abusive partners.
Helplines, virtual safe spaces smart phone applications and online counselling to address issues of violence and abuse for women and girls.
Very limited evidence supported interventions/innovations related to participation including:
Use of online platforms to reduce gender disparities in the presentation of academic/professional work.
Ensuring equal representation, including women and marginalised persons, in pandemic response and recovery planning and decision-making.
Limited evidence from the grey literature described interventions/innovations related to education including:
Teacher training curricula development to empower teachers to understand and challenge gender stereotypes in learning environments.
Education for girls to enable participation in STEM.
Policy Implications This evidence can be used to map against existing policies to identify which are supported by the evidence, which are not in current policy and could be implemented and where further research/evaluation is needed.
Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational innovations, the effectiveness of the innovations in minority groups and the social value gained from interventions to address gender inequalities.
Strength of Evidence One systematic review on mobile interventions targeting common mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women was rated as high quality (Saad et al., 2021). The overall confidence in the strength of evidence was rated as ‘low’ due to study designs. Searches did not include COVID specific resources or pre-prints. There may be additional interventions/innovations that have been implemented to reduce inequalities experienced by women and girls due to the COVID-19 pandemic but have not been evaluated or published in the literature and are therefore not included here.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This rapid review was funded by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Abbreviations
- AofRCD
- Analysis of routinely collected data
- Brexit
- Brexit is the name given to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. It is a combination of Britain and exit European Union. It is a combination of Britain and exit
- BTM
- Bridges to Moms
- CGD
- Center for Global Development
- EHRC
- Equality and human rights commission
- GP
- General Practitioner
- HCEC
- Health and Care Economics Cymru
- IPAC
- Infection Prevention and Control
- JBI
- Joanna Briggs Institute
- LFD
- Lateral Flow Devices
- LGBT+
- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Questioning +. People often use LGBTQ+ to mean all of the “LGBTTTQQIAA” communities including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, 2/Two-Spirit, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, Pansexual, Agender, Gend Pangender.
- LTCF
- Long Term Care Facility
- M
- Mean
- NHS
- National Health Service
- NICE
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
- NS
- Unclear or unspecified
- OECD
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- PCR
- test Polymerase Chain Reaction test
- PHE
- Public Health England
- PHW
- Public Health Wales
- PICO
- framework Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes framework
- PPE
- Personal Protective Equipment
- RCT
- Randomised Controlled Trial
- RES
- Rapid Evidence Summary
- SCIE
- Social Care Institute for Excellence
- SD
- Standard Deviation
- SGM
- Sexual and Gender Minorities
- SR
- Suicide Rates
- STEM
- Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
- UK
- United Kingdom
- VCS
- Voluntary and Community Sector
- W1
- First wave
- W2
- Second wave
- W3
- Third wave
- WC19EC
- Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre
- WHCW
- Women Health-Care Workers