As one might expect, authors writing manuscripts about women’s health during the pandemic do not make earth shattering theoretical contributions. Similar to researchers studying natural disasters such as hurricanes, most conduct ex post facto research that is cross-sectional research in single locations.
The greatest theoretical contribution in this collection is not about women’s health perse, but about the relationship between how health burden (such as what occurs during a pandemic) has a limiting effect of labor productivity. Read Mobosi’s work to understand why low and moderate income countries in Africa experienced greater health burdens and greater limits on productivity. Their theoretical contribution is greater because the research involved data from 48 countries.
What we learn collectively from these researchers is that gender predicted access to health care and health care burden. Women and children had limited access to healthcare at the height of the pandemic, particularly so for those who were pregnant (Hassan Joulaei et al. and Mohammad Afshar et al.). Some women, however, were resilient and worked to combat burnout on the job and at home as caregivers.
We also see examples of the barriers associated with gender being exacerbated by pandemic circumstances. Muhammad D. Khan notes the increased challenges for the transgender community with regard to vaccination. Alain Rodrigue Tchimtchoua Tamo explores the increase in academic stress for children and subsequent maternal anxiety. Work stress experienced by women becomes larger (Hülya Özberk & Hande Yağcan and Süreyya Gümüşsoy & Didem Kıratlı). Women face more levels of fear, negative feelings and violence than do men during COVID-19 outbreak negatively affecting subjective well-being of health employees (Şakir Güler et al.).
Health itself is also negatively impacted. Women experience changes in length of menstrual cycle during pandemic associated lockdown and women sleep more during pandemic associated lockdown (Anat Lan et al.). Physical activity is helpful to reduce stress resulting from confinement during a pandemic but seems more so for men than women (Mahmoud A. Alomari et al.). Women admit to more psychological symptoms than do men but lessen their stress through reappraisal of the situation (Angelo Panno et al.).
Access to health care becomes more complicated. Filiz Ünal Toprak et al. find that fear leads to willingness to use or practice complementary medicine, but relationship weakens with increased education and literacy. Referrals to treatment delayed, even for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and children (Songül Aktaş et al.). A theoretical and practice contribution is made by establishing digital education is helpful substitute for social interaction during a pandemic (Kübra Pınar Gürkan et al.).
While most of the authors’ theoretical contributions included in this double issue need to have their work replicated elsewhere to truly make an international contribution, there is much to be learned from their work about the continued impact of Covid-19. We are hopeful that you will read and learn and that the work included in this issue will inspire the next wave of researchers focusing on Covid. We encourage researchers to move beyond ex post facto research relating to the initial phases of the pandemic and focus on the impact of Covid-19 on our continued lives.
[email protected]
Elizabeth Fugate-Whitlock, PhD, Associate Editor [email protected]