Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFernández Sáez, José
dc.contributor.authorRuiz Cantero, María Teresa
dc.contributor.authorGuijarro Garvi, Marta 
dc.contributor.authorCarrasco Portiño. Mercedes
dc.contributor.authorRoca Pérez, Victoria
dc.contributor.authorChilet Rosell, Elisa
dc.contributor.authorAlvarez Dardet, Carlos
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Cantabriaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2016-12-12T09:27:29Z
dc.date.available2016-12-12T09:27:29Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn1471-2458
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10902/9774
dc.description.abstractBackground: It has been shown that gender equity has a positive impact on the everyday activities of people (decision making, income allocation, application and observance of norms/rules) which affect their health. Gender equity is also a crucial determinant of health inequalities at national level; thus, monitoring is important for surveillance of women’s and men’s health as well as for future health policy initiatives. The Gender Equity Index (GEI) was designed to show inequity solely towards women. Given that the value under scrutiny is equity, in this paper a modified version of the GEI is proposed, the MGEI, which highlights the inequities affecting both sexes. Methods: Rather than calculating gender gaps by means of a quotient of proportions, gaps in the MGEI are expressed in absolute terms (differences in proportions). The Spearman’s rank coefficient, calculated from country rankings obtained according to both indexes, was used to evaluate the level of concordance between both classifications. To compare the degree of sensitivity and obtain the inequity by the two methods, the variation coefficient of the GEI and MGEI values was calculated. Results: Country rankings according to GEI and MGEI values showed a high correlation (rank coef. = 0.95). The MGEI presented greater dispersion (43.8%) than the GEI (19.27%). Inequity towards men was identified in the education gap (rank coef. = 0.36) when using the MGEI. According to this method, many countries shared the same absolute value for education but with opposite signs, for example Azerbaijan (−0.022) and Belgium (0.022), reflecting inequity towards women and men, respectively. This also occurred in the empowerment gap with the technical and professional job component (Brunei:-0.120 vs. Australia, Canada Iceland and the U.S.A.: 0.120). Conclusion: The MGEI identifies and highlights the different areas of inequities between gender groups. It thus overcomes the shortcomings of the GEI related to the aim for which this latter was created, namely measuring gender equity, and is therefore of great use to policy makers who wish to understand and monitor the results of specific equity policies and to determine the length of time for which these policies should be maintained in order to correct long-standing structural discrimination against women.es_ES
dc.format.extent10 p.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherBioMed Centrales_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 Españaes_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.sourceBMC public health. 2013, 13:659es_ES
dc.subject.otherGender equityes_ES
dc.subject.otherIndexes_ES
dc.subject.otherEducationes_ES
dc.subject.otherEmpowermentes_ES
dc.subject.otherIncomees_ES
dc.titleLooking twice at the gender equity index for public health impact.es_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherVersionhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/659es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses_ES
dc.type.versionpublishedVersiones_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución 3.0 EspañaExcept where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución 3.0 España