| Literature DB >> 31937206 |
Tuan T Nguyen1, Ashley Darnell1, Amy Weissman1,2, Edward A Frongillo3, Roger Mathisen1, Karin Lapping4, Timothy D Mastro5, Mellissa Withers6.
Abstract
Background: Progress in gender equity can improve health at the individual and country levels.Entities:
Keywords: China; Gender Gap Index (GGI); Nepal; Nicaragua; gender equity; health disparities/inequities; interrupted time-series analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31937206 PMCID: PMC7006713 DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1712147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Figure 1.The trends of the gender gap index and sub-indices
Association between key events and the gender gap index trend from 2006 to 2017: single-group interrupted time-series analysis.a
| China | Nepal | Nicaragua | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of observations | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Intercept (β0) | 0.656*** | 0.543*** | 0.650*** |
| (0.651, 0.660) | (0.525, 0.562) | (0.631, 0.669) | |
| Slope before event 1 (β1) | 0.013*** | 0.023* | 0.009 |
| (0.010, 0.016) | (0.008, 0.039) | (−0.007, 0.025) | |
| Change in level immediately after event 1 (β2.1) | 0.008 | 0.025 | |
| (−0.026, −0.007) | (−0.024, 0.041) | (−0.012, 0.061) | |
| Difference in slopes between pre- and post- event 1 (β3.1) | 0.003 | ||
| (−0.018, −0.011) | (−0.051, −0.021) | (−0.013, 0.019) | |
| Change in level immediately after event 2 (β2.2) | −0.005 | ||
| (−0.012, 0.003) | (0.013, 0.044) | ||
| Difference in slopes between pre- and post- event 2 (β3.2) | −0.005 | ||
| (0.015, 0.027) | (−0.013, 0.002) | ||
| Change in level immediately after event 3 (β2.3) | |||
| (0.021, 0.045) | |||
| Difference in slopes between pre- and post- event 3 (β3.3) | −0.002 | ||
| (−0.011, 0.006) |
Values are coefficient of regression (β) and 95% CIs. Significantly different from the null value (β = 0; two-sided t-tests): *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Findings were generated using single-group, interrupted time-series analysis.
aEvents were in 2010 in China; in 2009 and 2012 in Nicaragua; and in 2009, 2011, and 2014 in Nepal.
Figure 2.Association between key events and the gender gap index trend from 2006 to 2017: single-group, interrupted time-series analysis. Gender gap index (black dot) and predicted trend (solid line) by key event (vertical dash line)
Association between key events and the gender gap index trend from 2006 to 2017: matched, interrupted time-series analysis.a,b
| China | Nepal | Nicaragua | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of observations | 92 | 90 | 289 |
| Intercept of the control group (β0) | 0.669*** | 0.576*** | 0.655*** |
| (0.651, 0.686) | (0.568, 0.584) | (0.646, 0.663) | |
| Slope before event of the control group (β1) | 0.004 | 0.007*** | 0.005** |
| (−0.005, 0.013) | (0.005, 0.009) | (0.001, 0.009) | |
| Difference in the level between the studied country and control group before event (β4) | −0.013 | −0.010 | −0.005 |
| (−0.031, 0.005) | (−0.039, 0.019) | (−0.019, 0.010) | |
| Difference in slopes between the studied country and control group before event (β5) | 0.009 | −0.000 | 0.004 |
| (−0.000, 0.018) | (−0.006, 0.005) | (−0.006, 0.014) | |
| Change in level immediately after event of control group (β2) | 0.009 | −0.004 | −0.003 |
| (−0.016, 0.034) | (−0.019, 0.012) | (−0.018, 0.012) | |
| Difference in the slopes between pre- and post- event of the control group(β3) | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.002 |
| (−0.011, 0.009) | (−0.008, 0.007) | (−0.006, 0.002) | |
| Difference in the level between the studied country and control group immediately following event (β6) | −0.025 | ||
| (−0.051, 0.001) | (0.003, 0.056) | (0.005, 0.065) | |
| Difference between the studied country in the slope after event compared with before event (β7) | −0.001 | 0.006 | |
| (−0.024, −0.004) | (−0.010, 0.009) | (−0.004, 0.016) | |
| Linear post-event trends | |||
| Studied country | |||
| (−0.003, −0.001) | (0.004, 0.008) | (0.01, 0.016) | |
| Controls | 0.003 | 0.006 | |
| (−0.002, 0.008) | (−0.001, 0.014) | (0.001, 0.005) | |
| Difference | −0.001 | ||
| (−0.01, −0.001) | (−0.008, 0.007) | (0.006, 0.013) |
Values are coefficient of regression (β) and 95% CIs. Significantly different from the null value (β = 0; two-sided t-tests): *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Findings were generated using matched, interrupted time-series analysis. Matched controls were selected by matching the level and trend of gender gap index of the studied countries before the event with those of other 146 countries with the estimation of gender gap index.
aEvents were in 2010 in China, in 2014 Nepal, and in 2009 in Nicaragua.
bMatched control countries: for : Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay; for : Bahrain, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Turkey; and for : Curaçao, Malawi, Chile, The Gambia, Italy, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Peru, Greece, Brazil, Zimbabwe, China, Malta, Myanmar, Kenya, Uruguay.
Figure 3.Association between key events and the gender gap index trend from 2006 to 2017: matched, interrupted time-series analysis. Gender gap index (black dot) and predicted trend (solid line) and of the controls’ average (hollow dot) and predicted trend (long-dash line), by key event (vertical dash line)