Women in decision making: does it make a difference? : Case studies of Newfoundland and Labrador Heart Health Project sites
The overall goal was to explore whether the policies and programs developed by women decision makers in three community-based heart health projects were gender sensitive. The research objectives were (1) to determine whether the fact that women comprised the majority of decision makers in three of t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Memorial University of Newfoundland
2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://research.library.mun.ca/7000/ https://research.library.mun.ca/7000/1/Williams_WendyChristine.pdf https://research.library.mun.ca/7000/3/Williams_WendyChristine.pdf |
| Summary: | The overall goal was to explore whether the policies and programs developed by women decision makers in three community-based heart health projects were gender sensitive. The research objectives were (1) to determine whether the fact that women comprised the majority of decision makers in three of the community-based projects funded under the Newfoundland and Labrador Heart Health Project allowed for development of programs and policies that were gender sensitive; and (2) to identify factors that contributed to the development of gender sensitive policies and programs in the three community-based projects. Case studies were done on three community-based heart health projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador Heart health Project. These community-based projects produced some gender sensitive programs and policies. Gender sensitive programming was more likely to be developed when women learned about cardiovascular disease through a family history, became involved in the heart health project with a desire to improve their family's or their own health, the heart health committee was a cohesive group, and decision makers learned about the differences in women's and men's experience of CVD through their professional education. Even though some gender sensitive programming was delivered, decision makers had little understanding of why women but not men participated in their activities. If health promotion activities are to benefit both women and men then organizers will have to receive education on the different needs of men and women. This education is often called gender sensitive training. Organizations dominated by men will need to be encouraged to become involved in health promotion programs if men are to benefit. |
|---|