• Skip to language switcher
  • Skip to main categories navigation
  • Skip to secondary categories navigation
  • Skip to main navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
European Institute for Gender Equality logoEuropean Institute for Gender Equality
Search

Search form

English
  • EN - English
  • LT - Lietuvių kalba
  • EN - English
  • BG - Български
  • ES - Español
  • CS - Čeština
  • DA - Dansk
  • DE - Deutsch
  • ET - Eesti
  • EL - Ελληνικά
  • FR - Français
  • GA - Gaeilge
  • HR - Hrvatski
  • IT - Italiano
  • LV - Latviešu valoda
  • LT - Lietuvių kalba
  • RO - Română
  • PT - Português
  • MT - Malti
  • PL - Polski
  • FI - Suomi
  • HU - Magyar
  • NL - Nederlands
  • SK - Slovenčina (slovenský jazyk)
  • SL - Slovenščina (slovenski jezik)
  • SV - Svenska
  • Menu
  • Gender mainstreaming
    • What is Gender mainstreaming
      • Policy cycle
    • Institutions and structures
      • European Union
      • EU Member States
      • Stakeholders
      • International organizations
    • Policy areas
      • Agriculture and rural development
        • Policy cycle
      • Culture
        • Policy cycle
      • Digital agenda
        • Policy cycle
      • Economic and financial affairs
        • #3 Steps Forward
          • How can you make a difference?
        • Economic Benefits of Gender Equality in the EU
        • Policy cycle
      • Education
        • Policy cycle
      • Employment
        • Policy cycle
        • Structures
      • Energy
        • Policy cycle
      • Entrepreneurship
        • Policy cycle
      • Environment and climate change
        • Policy cycle
      • Health
        • Policy cycle
      • Justice
        • Policy cycle
      • Maritime affairs and fisheries
        • Policy cycle
      • Migration
        • Policy cycle
      • Poverty
        • Policy cycle
      • Regional policy
        • Policy cycle
      • Research
        • Policy cycle
      • Security
        • Policy cycle
      • Sport
        • Policy cycle
      • Tourism
        • Policy cycle
      • Transport
        • Policy cycle
      • Youth
        • Policy cycle
    • Toolkits
      • Gender Equality Training
        • Back to toolkit page
        • What is Gender Equality Training
        • Why invest in Gender Equality Training
        • Who should use Gender Equality Training
        • Step-by-step guide to Gender Equality Training
            • 1. Assess the needs
            • 2. Integrate initiatives to broader strategy
            • 3. Ensure sufficient resources
            • 4. Write good terms of reference
            • 5. Select a trainer
            • 6. Engage in the needs assessment
            • 7. Actively participate in the initiative
            • 8. Invite others to join in
            • 9. Monitoring framework and procedures
            • 10. Set up an evaluation framework
            • 11. Assess long-term impacts
            • 12. Give space and support others
        • Designing effective Gender Equality Training
        • Gender Equality Training in the EU
        • Good Practices on Gender Equality Training
        • More resources on Gender Equality Training
        • More on EIGE's work on Gender Equality Training
      • Gender Impact Assessment
        • Back to toolkit page
        • What is Gender Impact Assessment
        • Why use Gender Impact Assessment
        • Who should use Gender Impact Assessment
        • When to use Gender Impact Assessment
        • Guide to Gender Impact Assessment
          • Step 1: Definition of policy purpose
          • Step 2: Checking gender relevance
          • Step 3: Gender-sensitive analysis
          • Step 4: Weighing gender impact
          • Step 5: Findings and proposals for improvement
        • Following up on gender impact assessment
        • General considerations
        • Examples from the EU
            • European Commission
            • Austria
            • Belgium
            • Denmark
            • Finland
            • Sweden
            • Basque country
            • Catalonia
            • Lower Saxony
            • Swedish municipalities
      • Institutional Transformation
        • Back to toolkit page
        • What is Institutional Transformation
          • Institutional transformation and gender: Key points
          • Gender organisations
          • Types of institutions
          • Gender mainstreaming and institutional transformation
          • Dimensions of gender mainstreaming in institutions: The SPO model
        • Why focus on Institutional Transformation
          • Motivation model
        • Who the guide is for
        • Guide to Institutional Transformation
            • 1. Creating accountability and strengthening commitment
            • 2. Allocating resources
            • 3. Conducting an organisational analysis
            • 4. Developing a strategy and work plan
            • 5. Establishing a support structure
            • 6. Setting gender equality objectives
            • 7. Communicating gender mainstreaming
            • 8. Introducing gender mainstreaming
            • 9. Developing gender equality competence
            • 10. Establishing a gender information management system
            • 11. Launching gender equality action plans
            • 12. Promotional equal opportunities
            • 13. Monitoring and steering organisational change
        • Dealing with resistance
          • Discourse level
          • Individual level
          • Organisational level
          • Statements and reactions
        • Checklist: Key questions for change
        • Examples from the EU
            • 1. Strengthening accountability
            • 2. Allocating resources
            • 3. Organisational analysis
            • 4. Developing a strategy and working plan
            • 5. Establishing a support structure
            • 6. Setting objectives
            • 7. Communicating gender mainstreaming
            • 8. Introducing methods and tools
            • 9. Developing Competence
            • 10. Establishing a gender information management system
            • 11. Launching action plans
            • 12. Promoting within an organisation
            • 13. Monitoring and evaluating
      • Gender Equality in Academia and Research
        • Back to toolkit page
        • WHAT
          • What is a Gender Equality Plan?
          • Terms and definitions
          • Which stakeholders need to be engaged into a GEP
          • About the Gear Tool
        • WHY
          • Horizon Europe GEP criterion
          • Gender Equality in Research and Innovation
          • Why change must be structural
          • Rationale for gender equality change in research and innovation
          • GEAR step-by-step guide for research organisations, universities and public bodies
            • Step 1: Getting started
            • Step 2: Analysing and assessing the state-of-play in the institution
            • Step 3: Setting up a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 4: Implementing a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 5: Monitoring progress and evaluating a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 6: What comes after the Gender Equality Plan?
          • GEAR step-by-step guide for research funding bodies
            • Step 1: Getting started
            • Step 2: Analysing and assessing the state-of-play in the institution
            • Step 3: Setting up a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 4: Implementing a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 5: Monitoring progress and evaluating a Gender Equality Plan
            • Step 6: What comes after the Gender Equality Plan?
          • GEAR action toolbox
            • Work-life balance and organisational culture
            • Gender balance in leadership and decision making
            • Gender equality in recruitment and career progression
            • Integration of the sex/gender dimension into research and teaching content
            • Measures against gender-based violence including sexual harassment
            • Measures mitigating the effect of COVID-19
            • Data collection and monitoring
            • Training: awareness-raising and capacity building
            • GEP development and implementation
            • Gender-sensitive research funding procedures
          • Success factors for GEP development and implementation
          • Challenges & resistance
        • WHERE
          • Austria
          • Belgium
          • Bulgaria
          • Croatia
          • Cyprus
          • Czechia
          • Denmark
          • Estonia
          • Finland
          • France
          • Germany
          • Greece
          • Hungary
          • Ireland
          • Italy
          • Latvia
          • Lithuania
          • Luxembourg
          • Malta
          • Netherlands
          • Poland
          • Portugal
          • Romania
          • Slovakia
          • Slovenia
          • Spain
          • Sweden
          • United Kingdom
      • Gender-sensitive Parliaments
        • Back to toolkit page
        • What is the tool for?
        • Who is the tool for?
        • How to use the tool
        • Self-assessment, scoring and interpretation of parliament gender-sensitivity
          • AREA 1 – Women and men have equal opportunities to ENTER the parliament
            • Domain 1 – Electoral system and gender quotas
            • Domain 2 - Political party/group procedures
            • Domain 3 – Recruitment of parliamentary employees
          • AREA 2 – Women and men have equal opportunities to INFLUENCE the parliament’s working procedures
            • Domain 1 – Parliamentarians’ presence and capacity in a parliament
            • Domain 2 – Structure and organisation
            • Domain 3 – Staff organisation and procedures
          • AREA 3 – Women’s interests and concerns have adequate SPACE on parliamentary agenda
            • Domain 1 – Gender mainstreaming structures
            • Domain 2 – Gender mainstreaming tools in parliamentary work
            • Domain 3 – Gender mainstreaming tools for staff
          • AREA 4 – The parliament produces gender-sensitive LEGISLATION
            • Domain 1 – Gender equality laws and policies
            • Domain 2 – Gender mainstreaming in laws
            • Domain 3 – Oversight of gender equality
          • AREA 5 – The parliament complies with its SYMBOLIC function
            • Domain 1 – Symbolic meanings of spaces
            • Domain 2 – Gender equality in external communication and representation
        • How gender-sensitive are parliaments in the EU?
        • Examples of gender-sensitive practices in parliaments
          • Women and men have equal opportunities to ENTER the parliament
          • Women and men have equal opportunities to INFLUENCE the parliament’s working procedures
          • Women’s interests and concerns have adequate SPACE on parliamentary agenda
          • The parliament produces gender-sensitive LEGISLATION
          • The parliament complies with its SYMBOLIC function
        • Glossary of terms
        • References and resources
      • Gender Budgeting
        • Back to toolkit page
        • Who is this toolkit for?
        • What is gender budgeting?
          • Introducing gender budgeting
          • Gender budgeting in women’s and men’s lived realities
          • What does gender budgeting involve in practice?
          • Gender budgeting in the EU Funds
            • Gender budgeting as a way of complying with EU legal requirements
            • Gender budgeting as a way of promoting accountability and transparency
            • Gender budgeting as a way of increasing participation in budget processes
            • Gender budgeting as a way of advancing gender equality
        • Why is gender budgeting important in the EU Funds?
          • Three reasons why gender budgeting is crucial in the EU Funds
        • How can we apply gender budgeting in the EU Funds? Practical tools and Member State examples
          • Tool 1: Connecting the EU Funds with the EU’s regulatory framework on gender equality
            • Legislative and regulatory basis for EU policies on gender equality
            • Concrete requirements for considering gender equality within the EU Funds
            • EU Funds’ enabling conditions
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 2: Analysing gender inequalities and gender needs at the national and sub-national levels
            • Steps to assess and analyse gender inequalities and needs
            • Step 1. Collect information and disaggregated data on the target group
            • Step 2. Identify existing gender inequalities and their underlying causes
            • Step 3. Consult directly with the target groups
            • Step 4. Draw conclusions
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 3: Operationalising gender equality in policy objectives and specific objectives/measures
            • Steps for operationalising gender equality in Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes
            • General guidance on operationalising gender equality when developing policy objectives, specific objectives and measures
            • Checklist for putting the horizontal principle of gender equality into practice in Partnership Agreements
            • Checklist for putting the horizontal principle of gender equality into practice in Operational Programmes
            • Examples of integrating gender equality as a horizontal principle in policy objectives and specific objectives
          • Tool 4: Coordination and complementarities between the EU Funds to advance work-life balance
            • Steps for enhancing coordination and complementarities between the funds
            • Step 1. Alignment with the EU’s strategic engagement goals for gender equality and national gender equality goals
            • Steps 2 and 3. Identifying and developing possible work-life balance interventions
            • Step 4. Following-up through the use of indicators within M&E systems
            • Fictional case study 1: reconciling paid work and childcare
            • Fictional case study 2: reconciling shift work and childcare
            • Fictional case study 3: balancing care for oneself and others
            • Fictional case study 4: reconciling care for children and older persons with shift work
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 5: Defining partnerships and multi-level governance
            • Steps for defining partnerships and multi-level governance
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 6: Developing quantitative and qualitative indicators for advancing gender equality
            • Steps to develop quantitative and qualitative indicators
            • ERDF and Cohesion Fund
            • ESF+
            • EMFF
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 7: Defining gender-sensitive project selection criteria
            • Steps to support gender-sensitive project development and selection
            • Checklist to guide the preparation of calls for project proposals
            • Checklist for project selection criteria
            • Supplementary tool 7.a: Gender-responsive agreements with project implementers
          • Tool 8: Tracking resource allocations for gender equality in the EU Funds
            • Ensuring gender relevance in EU Funds
            • The tracking system
            • Steps for tracking resource allocations on gender equality
            • Step 1: Ex ante approach
            • Step 2: Ex post approach
            • Examples of Step 2a
            • Annex 1: Ex ante assignment of intervention fields to the gender equality dimension codes
            • Annex 2: The EU’s gender equality legal and policy framework
          • Tool 9: Mainstreaming gender equality in project design
            • Steps to mainstream gender equality in project design
            • Step 1. Alignment with partnership agreements’ and Operational Programmes’ gender objectives and indicators
            • Step 2. Project development and application
            • Step 3. Project implementation
            • Step 4. Project assessment
          • Tool 10: Integrating a gender perspective in monitoring and evaluation processes
            • Steps to integrate a gender perspective in M&E processes
            • Additional resources
          • Tool 11: Reporting on resource spending for gender equality in the EU Funds
            • Tracking expenditures for gender equality
            • Additional resources
          • References
          • Abbreviations
          • Acknowledgements
      • Gender-responsive Public Procurement
        • Back to toolkit page
        • Who is this toolkit for?
          • Guiding you through the toolkit
        • What is gender-responsive public procurement?
          • How is gender-responsive public procurement linked to gender equality?
          • How is gender-responsive public procurement linked to gender budgeting?
          • Five reasons why gender-responsive public procurement
          • Why was this toolkit produced
        • Gender-responsive public procurement in practice
          • Legal framework cross-references gender equality and public procurement
          • Public procurement strategies cover GRPP
          • Gender equality action plans or strategies mention public procurement
          • Capacity-building programmes, support structures
          • Regular collaboration between gender equality bodies
          • Effective monitoring and reporting systems on the use of GRPP
          • Tool 1:Self-assessment questionnaire about the legal
          • Tool 2: Overview of the legislative, regulatory and policy frameworks
        • How to include gender aspects in tendering procedures
          • Pre-procurement stage
            • Needs assessment
            • Tool 3: Decision tree to assess the gender relevance
            • Preliminary market consultation
            • Tool 4: Guiding questions for needs assessment
            • Defining the subject matter of the contract
            • Choosing the procedure
            • Tool 5: Decision tree for the choice of procedure for GRPP
            • Dividing the contract into lots
            • Tool 6: Guiding questions for dividing contracts into lots for GRPP
            • Light regime for social, health and other specific services
            • Tool 7: Guiding questions for applying GRPP under the light regime
            • Tool 8: Guiding questions for applying GRPP under the light regime
            • Reserved contracts
            • Preparing tender documents
          • Procurement stage
            • Exclusion grounds
            • Selection criteria
            • Technical specifications
            • Tool 9: Decision tree for setting GRPP selection criteria
            • Award criteria
            • Tool 10: Formulating GRPP award criteria
            • Tool 11: Bidders’ concepts to ensure the integration of gender aspects
            • Use of labels/certifications
          • Post-procurement stage
            • Tool 12: Checklist for including GRPP contract performance conditions
            • Subcontracting
            • Monitoring
            • Reporting
            • Tool 13: Template for a GRPP monitoring and reporting plan
        • References
        • Additional resources
    • Methods and tools
      • Browse
      • About EIGE's methods and tools
      • Gender analysis
      • Gender audit
      • Gender awareness-raising
      • Gender budgeting
      • Gender impact assessment
      • Gender equality training
      • Gender-responsive evaluation
      • Gender statistics and indicators
      • Gender monitoring
      • Gender planning
      • Gender-responsive public procurement
      • Gender stakeholder consultation
      • Sex-disaggregated data
      • Institutional transformation
      • Examples of methods and tools
      • Resources
    • Good practices
      • Browse
      • About good practices
      • EIGE’s approach to good practices
    • Country specific information
      • Belgium
        • Overview
      • Bulgaria
        • Overview
      • Czechia
        • Overview
      • Denmark
        • Overview
      • Germany
        • Overview
      • Estonia
        • Overview
      • Ireland
        • Overview
      • Greece
        • Overview
      • Spain
        • Overview
      • France
        • Overview
      • Croatia
        • Overview
      • Italy
        • Overview
      • Cyprus
        • Overview
      • Latvia
        • Overview
      • Lithuania
        • Overview
      • Luxembourg
        • Overview
      • Hungary
        • Overview
      • Malta
        • Overview
      • Netherlands
        • Overview
      • Austria
        • Overview
      • Poland
        • Overview
      • Portugal
        • Overview
      • Romania
        • Overview
      • Slovenia
        • Overview
      • Slovakia
        • Overview
      • Finland
        • Overview
      • Sweden
        • Overview
    • EIGE’s publications on Gender mainstreaming
    • Concepts and definitions
    • Power Up conference 2019
  • Gender-based violence
    • What is gender-based violence?
    • Forms of violence
    • EIGE’s work on gender-based violence
    • Administrative data collection
      • Data collection on violence against women
        • The need to improve data collection
        • Advancing administrative data collection on Intimate partner violence and gender-related killings of women
        • Improving police and justice data on intimate partner violence against women in the European Union
        • Developing EU-wide terminology and indicators for data collection on violence against women
        • Mapping the current status and potential of administrative data sources on gender-based violence in the EU
      • About the tool
      • Administrative data sources
      • Advanced search
    • Analysis of EU directives from a gendered perspective
    • Costs of gender-based violence
    • Cyber violence against women
    • Femicide
    • Intimate partner violence and witness intervention
    • Female genital mutilation
      • Risk estimations
    • Risk assessment and risk management by police
      • Risk assessment principles and steps
          • Principle 1: Prioritising victim safety
          • Principle 2: Adopting a victim-centred approach
          • Principle 3: Taking a gender-specific approach
          • Principle 4: Adopting an intersectional approach
          • Principle 5: Considering children’s experiences
          • Step 1: Define the purpose and objectives of police risk assessment
          • Step 2: Identify the most appropriate approach to police risk assessment
          • Step 3: Identify the most relevant risk factors for police risk assessment
          • Step 4: Implement systematic police training and capacity development
          • Step 5: Embed police risk assessment in a multiagency framework
          • Step 6: Develop procedures for information management and confidentiality
          • Step 7: Monitor and evaluate risk assessment practices and outcomes
      • Risk management principles and recommendations
        • Principle 1. Adopting a gender-specific approach
        • Principle 2. Introducing an individualised approach to risk management
        • Principle 3. Establishing an evidence-based approach
        • Principle 4. Underpinning the processes with an outcome-focused approach
        • Principle 5. Delivering a coordinated, multiagency response
      • Legal and policy framework
      • Tools and approaches
      • Areas for improvement
      • References
    • Good practices in EU Member States
    • Methods and tools in EU Member States
    • White Ribbon Campaign
      • About the White Ribbon Campaign
      • White Ribbon Ambassadors
    • Regulatory and legal framework
      • International regulations
      • EU regulations
      • Strategic framework on violence against women 2015-2018
      • Legal Definitions in the EU Member States
    • Literature and legislation
    • EIGE's publications on gender-based violence
    • Videos
  • Gender Equality Index
    • View countries
    • Compare countries
    • Thematic Focus
    • About Index
    • Publications
    • Forum 2022
    • Index Game
    • Videos
  • Gender Statistics Database
    • Browse Gender Statistics
    • Data talks
    • FAQs
    • About
    • Search
  • Beijing Platform for Action
  • Countries
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Czechia
    • Denmark
    • Germany
    • Estonia
    • Ireland
    • Greece
    • Spain
    • France
    • Croatia
    • Italy
    • Cyprus
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Hungary
    • Malta
    • Netherlands
    • Austria
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovenia
    • Slovakia
    • Finland
    • Sweden
  • Topics
    • Health
      • Covid-19 and gender equality
    • Violence
      • Orange the World
    • Agriculture and rural development
    • Culture
    • Digital agenda
    • Economic and financial affairs
    • Education
    • Employment
    • Energy
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Environment and climate change
    • Justice
    • Maritime affairs and fisheries
    • Migration
    • Poverty
    • Regional policy
    • Research
    • Sport
    • Tourism
    • Transport
    • Youth
  • About EIGE
    • EIGE's organisation
      • Management board
      • Experts' forum
      • EIGE staff
    • Our work
      • Stakeholders
      • EU candidate countries and potential candidates
        • About the IPA project
        • Examples from the region
          • Browse
          • About the examples
        • Gender equality indices in the region
        • Gender statistics in the region
        • Measuring violence against women in the region
      • Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies
    • Projects
      • Running projects
      • Closed projects
    • Planning and reporting documents
    • Documents registry
      • Request for access to EIGE documents
    • Contact us
    • Director’s speeches
  • Recruitment
    • Open vacancies
    • Closed vacancies
    • About Recruitment
    • FAQs
    • Selection procedure appeals
    • Relevant forms and information
    • Welcome guide
  • Procurement
    • Open procedures
    • Closed procedures
    • About Procurement
    • External Experts' Database
  • News
  • Events
    • Upcoming events
    • Past events
    • Gender Equality Forum 2022
      • About
      • Agenda
      • Videos
      • Speakers
      • Practical information
  • EIGE’s publications
    • Gender-sensitive Communication
      • Overview of the toolkit
      • First steps towards more inclusive language
        • Terms you need to know
        • Why should I ever mention gender?
        • Choosing whether to mention gender
        • Key principles for inclusive language use
      • Challenges
        • Stereotypes
          • Avoid gendered pronouns (he or she) when the person’s gender is unknown
          • Avoid irrelevant information about gender
          • Avoid gendered stereotypes as descriptive terms
          • Gendering in-animate objects
          • Using different adjectives for women and men
          • Avoid using stereotypical images
        • Invisibility and omission
          • Do not use ‘man’ as the neutral term
          • Do not use ‘he’ to refer to unknown people
          • Do not use gender-biased nouns to refer to groups of people
          • Take care with ‘false generics’
          • Greetings and other forms of inclusive communication
        • Subordination and trivialisation
          • Naming conventions
          • Patronising language
      • Test your knowledge
        • Quiz 1: Policy document
        • Quiz 2: Job description
        • Quiz 3: Legal text
      • Practical tools
        • Solutions for how to use gender-sensitive language
        • Pronouns
        • Invisibility or omission
        • Common gendered nouns
        • Adjectives
        • Phrases
      • Policy context
    • Work-life balance in the ICT sector
      • Back to toolkit page
      • EU policies on work-life balance
      • Women in the ICT sector
      • The argument for work-life balance measures
        • Challenges
      • Step-by-step approach to building a compelling business case
        • Step 1: Identify national work-life balance initiatives and partners
        • Step 2: Identify potential resistance and find solutions
        • Step 3: Maximise buy-in from stakeholders
        • Step 4: Design a solid implementation plan
        • Step 5: Carefully measure progress
        • Step 6: Highlight benefits and celebrate early wins
      • Toolbox for planning work-life balance measures in ICT companies
      • Work–life balance checklist
    • Gender Equality Index 2019. Work-life balance
      • Back to toolkit page
      • Foreword
      • Highlights
      • Introduction
        • Still far from the finish line
        • Snail’s-pace progress on gender equality in the EU continues
        • More women in decision-making drives progress
        • Convergence on gender equality in the EU
      • 2. Domain of work
        • Gender equality inching slowly forward in a fast-changing world of work
        • Women dominate part-time employment, consigning them to jobs with poorer career progression
        • Motherhood, low education and migration are particular barriers to work for women
      • 3. Domain of money
        • Patchy progress on gender-equal access to financial and economic resources
        • Paying the price for motherhood
        • Lifetime pay inequalities fall on older women
      • 4. Domain of knowledge
        • Gender equality in education standing still even as women graduates outnumber men graduates
        • Both women and men limit their study fields
        • Adult learning stalls most when reskilling needs are greatest
      • 5. Domain of time
        • Enduring burden of care perpetuates inequalities for women
        • Uneven impact of family life on women and men
      • 6. Domain of power
        • More women in decision-making but still a long way to go
        • Democracy undermined by absence of gender parity in politics
        • More gender equality on corporate boards — but only in a few Member States
        • Limited opportunities for women to influence social and cultural decision-making
      • 7. Domain of health
        • Behavioural change in health is key to tackling gender inequalities
        • Women live longer but in poorer health
        • Lone parents and people with disabilities are still without the health support they need
      • 8. Domain of violence
        • Data gaps mask the true scale of gender-based violence in the EU
        • Backlash against gender equality undermines legal efforts to end violence against women
        • Conceptual framework
        • Parental-leave policies
        • Informal care of older people, people with disabilities and long-term care services
        • Informal care of children and childcare services
        • Transport and public infrastructure
        • Flexible working arrangements
        • Lifelong learning
      • 10. Conclusions
    • Sexism at work
      • Background
        • What is sexism?
        • What is the impact of sexism at work?
        • Where does sexism come from?
        • Sexism at work
        • What happens when you violate sexist expectations?
        • What is sexual harassment?
        • Violating sexist expectations can lead to sexual harassment
        • Under-reporting of sexual harassment
      • Part 2. Test yourself
        • How can I combat sexism? A ten-step programme for managers
        • How can all staff create cultural change
        • How can I report a problem?
        • Eradicating sexism to change the face of the EU
    • Upcoming publications
  • Library
    • Search
    • About
  • Glossary & Thesaurus
    • Overview
    • About
    • A-Z Index
    • Browse
    • Search
  • Home
  • EIGE’s publications
  • EIGE-2021 Gender Equality Index 2021 Report: Health
  • Thematic focus
  • Gender inequalities in health in the European Union

EIGE-2021 Gender Equality Index 2021 Report: Health

PrintDownload as PDF
  • Back to toolkit page
  • Foreword
  • Highlights
  • Thematic focus: health
  • Introduction
  • Gender equality in the European Union at a glance
    • Progress is an uphill struggle
    • Decision-making driving change, segregation blocking it
    • Small drop in disparities in gender equality across the European Union, but COVID-19 could change that
  • Domain of work
    • Fragile pace of change since 2010
    • Unpaid childcare still hindering women from working full time
    • Women bear the brunt of the impact of COVID-19 on jobs
  • Domain of money
    • Earnings and income equality still out of reach
    • Single women, particularly in old age, are at highest risk of poverty
    • COVID-19 exacerbates women’s economic vulnerability and hardship
  • Domain of knowledge
    • Snail-pace progress comes to a halt
    • Hard-to-reach groups would benefit most from adult learning
    • School closures due to COVID-19 reinforce and add new inequalities in education and unpaid work
  • Domain of time
    • Gender inequalities in use of time live on
    • Gender differences on household chores entrenched from childhood
    • Unpaid care workloads and social isolation affect well-being
  • Domain of power
    • Decision-making gains drive gender equality progress
    • Legislative action makes a difference
    • Gender-balanced decision-making is imperative post pandemic
  • Domain of health
    • Enduring health inequalities stall progress
    • COVID-19 lowers life expectancy for men and birth rates
  • Domain of violence
    • A dearth of evidence hampers true assessment of violence against women
    • Inequalities heighten the risk of violence against women
    • Gender-based violence amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Thematic focus
    • Gender inequalities in health in the European Union
      • Gender differences in health reflect lifelong inequalities
        • Men are more likely to perceive their health as good
        • Women are more likely to have health limitations over their lifetime
        • The main causes of premature mortality are gendered
        • Women report poorer mental well-being than men
        • Gender differences in mental disorders begin early in life
        • Gender-based violence
        • Work stressors
        • Traditional norms of masculinity
        • Body image drives poor mental health, especially in youth
      • Health and risk behaviours are clearly gendered
      • Gender and intersecting inequalities in access to health services
    • Health dimensions in focus
      • Rights, access and outcomes – sexual and reproductive health in focus
      • The COVID-19 pandemic aggravates and brings forth health inequalities
  • Conclusions
  • References
  • Abbreviations

Gender and intersecting inequalities in access to health services

Timely access to good-quality, affordable healthcare (both preventive and curative) plays a critical role in maintaining good health. It is considered an important social determinant of health (WHO, 2019e). In the EU context, access to health services has been acknowledged as a right and recognised as a key principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights. In a survey carried out by EIGE, respondents ranked nine public services in order of the extent to which they enabled their participation in different everyday life activities[1]. The respondents, women and men alike, ranked health services as the most important type of public service and those that have the most transformative potential towards advancing gender equality in society. They create opportunities for people to be involved in education, employment and leisure (EIGE, 2020d).

Despite the EU standing out among industrialised regions for the health coverage of its population (OECD, 2019), universal access to health services is not yet achieved, and there are great variations in the level of access across the EU (Burns et al., 2019). Ethnic minority groups and migrant populations are seen to be over-represented among the population without, or with inadequate, health coverage (OECD, 2019). This section analyses which population groups are lagging behind in terms of access to health services and explores some of the reasons behind this.

Gender intersects with other social positions to hamper access to healthcare

Gender inequalities and gender norms intersect with socioeconomic, geographic and cultural factors and create structural barriers when accessing healthcare (WHO, 2019a). As highlighted in the domain of health chapter (Figure 22), several population groups, such as lone par­ents, older people, migrants and people with disabilities, and women in particular, stand out as highly vulnerable to unmet healthcare needs. Gender is an important determinant of healthcare access and uptake. Gender socialisation tends to deter men from seeking diagnosis and treatment, resulting in men being less likely than women to visit medical practitioners. A study in the United Kingdom found that men were 8 % less likely to consult a doctor than women, even when excluding consultations for reproductive reasons (Wang et al., 2013). The fact that women’s greater familiarity with the health and social services system is often attributed to the fact that they dedicate more of their time to childcare and long-term care.

Globally, people with disabilities have unequal access to healthcare services, and therefore have more unmet healthcare needs than the general population (WHO and World Bank, 2011). At the EU level, 7 % of women and 6 % of men with disabilities report unmet needs for medical services, but these figures are much higher in Estonia (29 % of women and 23 % of men), Romania (25 % of women and 23 % of men) and Greece (25 % of women and 22 % of men) (Figure 36). Gender gaps are modest in the majority of countries, with the exception of Estonia (6 p.p.). In Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, men with disabilities are more prone than women to having their medical needs unmet.

Figure 36. Unmet needs for medical services for women and men with disabilities, by EU Member State (%, 16+ years, 2019)
Source: Author’s calculation with microdata, EU-SILC, 2019 (IE, IT, 2018).

Older adults with disabilities and those living in rural areas experience difficulties in accessing appropriate transport to get to their medical healthcare providers (Gibson and O’Connor, 2010). Physical or structural barriers make it difficult for women with disabilities, especially when they live in rural areas, to access healthcare services, and as a result they may be dissuaded from attending screening for cervical or breast cancer (Ramjan et al., 2016). Furthermore, people with disabilities may have poor access to health promotion and disease prevention initiatives. This results in women with disabilities being less likely to receive screening for breast and cervical cancer than women without disabilities, and men with disabilities are less likely to be screened for prostate cancer (WHO and World Bank, 2011). The recently adopted 2021–2030 strategy on the rights of persons with disabilities includes access to healthcare[2]. The European Commission is also planning some guidance on access to healthcare based on inclusive, accessible, person-centred healthcare and free and informed consent, in line with the objectives of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Beyond medical services, access to long-term care services is critical to autonomous living and the well-being of people with disabilities and health limitations, especially in the context of the EU’s ageing population (EIGE, 2020f, 2021d). As shown by EIGE (2020f), barriers to accessing professional home-based care ae affect women disproportionately, as they are over-represented among the population most in need. In the EU, about 29 % of households reported unmet need for professional home care services in 2016 (EIGE, 2019d). Households were slightly more likely to report unmet needs (30 %) if a woman completed the survey than if a man did so (28 %). Women are more likely than men to report an unmet need for professional home care services in all but five Member States (LU, NL, AT, PT and SE) and the United Kingdom. The Member States with the highest unmet needs for professional home care services were Portugal (reported by 85 % of women and 86 % of men), Greece and Cyprus.

Nearly a quarter of women and men live in households that rely on informal care, which may either be insufficient or not be the most suitable / preferred arrangement for either the carer or the one cared for.

Access to palliative care or end-of-life care is also very uneven across the EU. Because palliative care revolves around pain relief and contributes to easing the physical and emotional suffering of patients and families, it is considered fundamental to human dignity (Council of Europe, 2018). The Council of Europe has highlighted the need to factor in rising needs for palliative care services as a corollary of ageing and an increase in the burden of disability. It raised particular concerns over ‘the lack of access to appropriate pain relief leading to situations in which patients suffer for months and even years and experience avoidable painful deaths’. Limited palliative care services have profound gendered impacts, with women bearing the brunt of lack of services not only as patients (women being more likely to suffer from health limitations, especially in older age groups, as shown in Figure 26) but also as informal carers whose own well-being and financial independence is put at risk by the burden of care (EIGE, 2019c, 2020e; Eurofound, 2020; Gott et al., 2020).

Reasons for unmet needs and underutilisation of medical services

This section will touch on three main sets of factors inhibiting access to medical services, namely the cost associated with them, experiences of discrimination and issues related to cultural sensitivity and a lack of gender sensitivity.

While unmet needs for medical services is a self-reported measure and, as such, could reflect certain biases, exploring reasons why individuals are not accessing the medical services they need can point to certain important determinants and inequalities and how they affect certain groups in particular.

Cost

According to EU-SILC data, about one quarter of individuals who reported unmet medical needs gave cost as a reason for being unable to access care (‘Could not afford to (too expensive)’). The other most common reasons for unmet medical care needs were ‘Wanted to wait and see if problem got better on its own’, lack of time (‘Could not take time because of work, care for children or for others’) and waiting times. In the case of dental care, the proportion of unmet needs due to financial reasons is far higher: half of the respondents gave this as an explanation. Women were a little more likely than men to mention cost as the main reason for not consulting, for either medical or dental care (Chaupain-Guillot and Guillot, 2015). Likewise, the cost of healthcare is a reason why women in financially unstable situations avoid care services, for example those who experience homelessness (Kneck et al., 2021).

As highlighted in Section 7.2., on the domain of health, women aged over 65 are slightly more likely than women overall to experience unmet needs for medical services[3]. The share of women and men aged 65+ experiencing unmet needs is highest in Estonia (22 % of women and 15 % of men), Romania and Greece (18 % of men and 13 % of women)[4]. Difficulties in accessing healthcare in old age are related to the fact that women are at higher risk of poverty or social exclusion than men when they reach old age (EIGE, 2020g), which reflects the accumulation of economic inequality over the life course. This is of particular importance since women are more likely than men to experience health limitations in old age (Ogg and Rašticová, 2020). Among people aged 65 and older, the leading reasons for unmet medical needs are affordability, especially among women, followed by being on a waiting list. Men are more likely than women to delay medical examination in the hope that the health issue will resolve itself (Figure 37).

Figure 37. Reasons for unmet needs for medical examinations among women and men (%, 65+ years, EU, 2019)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/hlth_silc_14.

Cost of medical services as a barrier to access is more frequently mentioned by people aged 65 and over than in the adult population as a whole (40 % of women and 34 % of men aged 65 and over, compared with 33 % of women and 29 % of men of the total adult population).

This is not to say that other population groups are not experiencing difficulties in affording healthcare. Data shows that large segments of the EU population would find it difficult to pay for unexpected dental care (41 % of women and 35 % of men), mental health services (39 % of women and 33 % of men) and other hospital or medical specialist services (32 % of women and 29 % of men) (Figure 38).

Figure 38. Difficulties in paying for unexpected medical expenses by sex and type of medical service (rather difficult or very difficult, %, 18+ years, EU, 2016)
NB: Respondents were asked, for each type of medical service, ‘How easy or difficult would it be for you to cover expenses for each of the following services, if you needed to use it tomorrow?’. Answers selected: ‘Rather difficult’ and ‘Very difficult’.
Source: EQLS, 2016.

The financial impact of health expenses, especially on a low-income population, can be captured by two indicators, namely ‘catastrophic health spending’, a situation in which households spend a high proportion of their resources on healthcare via out-of-pocket payments, and ‘impoverishing health spending’, in which a household either falls below the poverty line as a result of health expenses or is further impoverished by them (OECD, 2019). While ‘impoverishing health spending’ affects up to 6 % of households, catastrophic health spending is more common across the EU, affecting from around 1 % of households in Slovenia, Czechia and Ireland to 15 % in Lithuania (WHO, 2019b). Across the EU, households at the bottom of the income ladder, a group among which women and lone mothers are over-represented, were considerably more likely to be affected.

Discrimination and other systemic barriers

Accessing health services involves social interactions between patients and health workers in which societal power relations shape patients’ experiences (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2016b). WHO’s 2019 global monitoring report on primary healthcare sheds light on how gender norms and power influence access to health services. The report found that gender norms and power relations influence women’s access to health services and timely diagnosis, while harmful notions of masculinity increase men’s risk-taking and reduce their willingness to use health services  (WHO, 2019f).

Age, wealth, marital status, ethnicity, religion, caste, disability, education level, homelessness and migration status can lead to stigma and discrimination, which influence access to and use of health services (WHO, 2019a).

A survey by FRA found that 16 % of respondents felt discriminated against by healthcare or social services staff because of being LGBTI in the preceding 12 months[5]. Trans and intersex people were the most affected, with 34 % of respondents reporting feeling discriminated against in a health context, followed by lesbian women (16 %), bisexual women (14 %), gay men (11 %) and bisexual men (10 %). Members of the LGBTI community are still, at times, refused healthcare services or experience discrimination, and many feel unable to be open with healthcare professionals about their sexual and/or gender identity, or about being intersex. In the EU-28, 46 % of LGBTI respondents reported that none of their medical providers was aware of their LGBTI status. However, this figure varied greatly by country, from 28 % in Denmark  to 82 % in Lithuania[6]. Discriminative behaviours experienced by LGBTQI individuals include stigma, denial or refusal of healthcare, and verbal or physical abuse. Knowledge and educational levels, beliefs and religion affect healthcare providers’ attitudes towards LGBTQI patients and can lead to homophobic behaviour (Ayhan et al., 2020). Heterosexism, transphobia and homophobia are barriers to healthcare service access; these phenomena are systemic factors, not just individual practices, and may cause LGBTQI people to avoid treatment altogether (Smalley, 2018).

A body of literature explores the gap in the health and health needs of non-EU migrants, which may differ greatly from those of the general European population (Fair et al., 2020, Keygnaert et al., 2015, 2014a, 2014b). Compared with the general EU population, non-EU migrant women have less access to family planning and contraception and less access to SRH services (Abubakar et al., 2018; Fair et al., 2020).

Migrant women may face specific access barriers exacerbated by the intersection of gender, socioeconomic status and migration status. Such barriers may include less access to health information, cultural and religious beliefs, fear for their social, labour and administrative situation, housing and pressing economic needs and a deficient or a non-existent network of social and family support (Sánchez-López and Limiñana-Gras, 2017). Migrant girls may use health services less frequently than boys, depending on the study setting and ethnic group; however, further gender-based analyses of immigrant children’s healthcare use are needed, since the reasons behind the differences are largely unstudied (Pulver et al., 2016). Many studies have focused on how healthcare practices based on Western cultural concepts influence migrant and refugee women in mental healthcare services, but not many studies have examined how social support, gender, and institutional and organisational structures present barriers to women’s health-seeking behaviour (O’Mahony and Donnelly, 2010). Cultural barriers are seen to exacerbate other barriers to access, especially when it comes to mental health services for certain marginalised groups such as refugees or asylum seekers (Satinsky et al., 2019).

The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated barriers to access to healthcare services in the EU either because of deferment and deprioritisation of certain medical procedures or because of fear of infection. In particular, the Eurofound COVID-19 e-survey (2021c) found that 21 % of respondents had missed a medical examination or treatment during the pandemic. This proportion has remained stable at EU level since the onset of the pandemic and was highest in Latvia, Hungary and Portugal. In spring 2021, 18 % of respondents were experiencing a health issue for which they could not get treatment (Eurofound, 2021c).

Footnotes

[1] In general, health services were perceived to enable a person’s participation in activities such as employment, domestic work, leisure and education. Health services and medical centres enable a variety of activities, but to different degrees for women and men. A majority of women perceived health services and medical centres to be very important for participating in education, carrying out domestic and care work, and participating in employment; the proportion of men with this perception was smaller

[2] Union of equality: strategy on the rights of persons with disabilities 2021–2030 (easy-to-read version) – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion – European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_810.

[3] At the EU level, 4 % of women over 65 and 3 % of men of the same age report unmet needs for medical services, compared with 3 % of women and men in the overall adult population.

[4] Authors’ calculation with microdata, EU-SILC, 2019 (IE, IT, 2018).

[5] Source: Authors’ calculations for EU-27 based on FRA, EU-LGBTI II 2019 in the 12 months before the survey. Respondents were asked the question ‘In the past 12 months have you ever felt discriminated against due to being LGBTI by healthcare or social services personnel (e.g. a receptionist, nurse or doctor, a social worker)?’.

[6] Respondents were asked ‘To how many medical staff/healthcare providers are you open about being LGBTI?’ Source: FRA, EU-LGBTI II Survey, 2020.

Share:

Useful links

  • Who we are
  • Recruitment
  • News 
  • Events

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest EIGE's updates on a personalised basis. See all past newsletters.

General enquiries

  • EIGE's secretariat
  •  +370 5 215 7400
  • Contact form

Find us

image of map

Gedimino pr. 16, LT-01103 Vilnius, Lithuania

Media enquiries

  • Georgie Bradley
  •  +370 6 982 7826
  • georgie.bradley@eige.europa.eu

EIGE in social media

  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Youtube
  • Follow us on Linkedin
EIGE logo
Making equality between women and men a reality for all Europeans and beyond
 

© 2023 European Institute for Gender Equality

Help us improve

Take me to top

  • Web Accessibility
  • Legal notices
  • Personal Data Protection
  • Cookies Policy
  • The UK on EIGE's website
  • Contact us
  • Login