4.4 Article

Gender equity in health care in Sweden - Minor improvements since the 1990s

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 24-36

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.07.012

关键词

gender; equity; quality of care; medical research; Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A report by the Swedish National Committee on Gender Disparities in Patient Care (1996) identified many shortcomings in the ability of the health sector to gear patient management and treatment to the specific needs of men and women. To promote gender equity in health care, the Committee presented several proposals relating to research, education, monitoring, and evaluation of health services and the responsibilities of health authorities. In 2002, the Swedish Government authorised the National Board of Health and Welfare to review and analyse gender equity trends in health care. Data from, e.g. the national quality registers, epidemiological health data registers, population surveys, and Patient Trust Boards were compiled to identify gender disparities in the quality and accessibility of health services. The curricula of medical universities and the policies of major research funds were reviewed, as were developments in major fields of health research. The National Board found that many of the gender disparities identified in the 1990s still exist, e.g. access to advanced evidence-based technologies such as coronary interventions. As previously, women account for around 60%, and men for 40%, of complaints, e.g. to the Patients' Advisory Committees. Many of the proposals of the National Committee have not been fully implemented by the national authorities or the county councils. We conclude that promoting gender equity in health care is an important but difficult task for health authorities. To make health services more gender sensitive a combination of strategies, including enforcement by guidelines and regulations, may be needed. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据