The article “Gender analysis of the World Health Organization online learning program on Immunization Agenda 2030” is, according to the authors, “the first to showcase the positive inclusion of mainstreaming gender in a WHO capacity-building program.”
Context:
- The paper analyzes action plans developed and peer reviewed by participants in one cohort of the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) Scholar Level 1 certification course on Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030), a course developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
- WHO’s Scholar courses only utilize the knowledge creation component of TGLF’s learning-to-action model, whereas the full model supports implementation that leads to improved health outcomes.
- TGLF uses an innovative peer learning-to-action model, developed through over a decade of research and practice, focused on knowledge creation through dialogue, critique, and collaboration, with rubric-based peer feedback scaffolding the learning process.
- The course was facilitated by Charlotte Mbuh and Min Zha, two women learning leaders at The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF), who combine deep expertise in learning science and real-world knowledge of immunization in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Key findings:
- The analysis included 111 action plans, a subset of the projects and insights shared, from participants across 31 countries working to improve immunization programs.
- It found that “all action plans in the 111 sample, except three, included gender considerations” showing the course was effective in raising awareness of gender barriers.
This is consistent with the known effectiveness of peer feedback, as the rubric followed by each learner included specific instructions to “describe how your action plan has considered and integrated gender dimensions in immunization.”
TGLF’s peer learning model focuses on generating and applying new knowledge. This appears to be conducive to raising awareness of issues like gender barriers to immunization. By giving and receiving feedback, participants build understanding.
Whereas only around ten percent of learners participated in expert-led presentations offered about gender and immunization, every learner had to think through and write up gender analysis. And every learner had to give feedback on the gender analyses of three colleagues.
The social nature of giving and received structured peer feedback, supported by expert-designed resources, creates accountability and motivation for integrating gender considerations. Participants educate one another on blindspots, helping embed attention to gender issues.
Compared to traditional expert-led capacity building, this peer-led approach empowered participants to learn from each other’s experience, situating gender in their real-world practice, rather than as an abstract concept that requires global experts to explain it. This participant-driven process with built-in feedback mechanisms is likely to have helped make the increased gender awareness actionable.
What we learned about gender barriers
- The most cited barrier was “low education and health literacy” affecting immunization uptake. As one plan stated, “lower educational levels of maternal caregivers are more commonly related to under-vaccination”.
- Other major barriers were difficulties accessing services due to “gender-related factors influencing mobility, location, availability, or quality of health services” and lack of male involvement in decisions, as “men make most of the household decisions while they often do not have sufficient information”.
- Proposed strategies focused on areas like “incentive schemes” and “on-the-job support” for female health workers, “community engagement” to improve literacy, and better “engagement of men” in immunization activities.
TGLF’s peer learning approach likely contributed to raising awareness of gender issues and ability to propose context-specific solutions, though some implicit biases may have affected peer evaluations.
Overall, the analysis shows mainstreaming gender was an effective part of this capacity building program, and the authors appear convinced of its potential to lead to more gender-equitable and effective immunization policies and services.
However, the authors’ claim that “gender inequality and harmful gender norms in many settings create barriers and are the main reasons for suboptimal immunization coverage” is not substantiated by the available data. The action plans do provide some contextual descriptions of gender barriers and describe an intent to take action. But descriptions shared by learners were not verified, and the course did not offer any support to learners in implementing their proposed actions.
Reference: Nyasulu, B.J., Heidari, S., Manna, M., Bahl, J., Goodman, T., 2023. Gender analysis of the World Health Organization online learning program on Immunization Agenda 2030. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health 4, 1230109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1230109
Illustration: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024