Logo UNICEF Innocenti
Office of Research-Innocenti
menu icon
79 items found
La pandemia producto del COVID-19 derivó en una crisis en múltiples niveles y ámbitos donde el ejercicio de los derechos de niñas, niños y adolescentes fue puesto en riesgo. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo generar evidencia sobre las experiencias, percepciones y opiniones de los niños, niñas y adolescentes sobre la pandemia, y la respuesta que tuvo Chile frente a esta.
LANGUAGES:

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations. The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.
LANGUAGES:

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations. The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.
LANGUAGES:

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations. The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.
LANGUAGES:

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations. The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.
LANGUAGES:

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations. The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.
LANGUAGES:

This report outlines the polycrisis in which the world finds itself — multiple, simultaneous shocks with strong interdependencies, intensified in an ever-more integrated world — along with eight trends that will shape child rights and well-being in the coming year.

AUTHOR(S)

UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight
LANGUAGES:

Social protection can reduce income poverty and food and economic insecurity, address financial barriers to accessing social services, and promote positive development outcomes throughout the life course – particularly for women and girls. But can it address preexisting gender inequalities through the design, implementation and financing of its programmes? To strengthen the evidence base ‘what works’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ for social protection to contribute to gender equality, this report proposes and presents an analytical approach to evidence generation on gender-responsive social protection for gender-transformative change. It builds on the Gender-Responsive Age-Sensitive Social Protection (GRASSP) conceptual framework, and on the theoretical, conceptual and empirical literature on gender and social protection. Structured as a socio-ecological framework, our approach presents three interconnected change pathways – at the individual, household and societal level – through which gender-responsive social protection can contribute to gender-transformative results, along with tailored design and implementation features, and underpinned by a set of change levers that existing evidence suggests can strengthen the gender-responsiveness of social protection systems.
LANGUAGES:

Report Card 17 explores how 43 OECD/EU countries are faring in providing healthy environments for children. Do children have clean water to drink? Do they have good-quality air to breathe? Are their homes free of lead and mould? How many children live in overcrowded homes? How many have access to green play spaces, safe from road traffic? Data show that a nation’s wealth does not guarantee a healthy environment. Far too many children are deprived of a healthy home, irreversibly damaging their current and future well-being. Beyond children’s immediate environments, over-consumption in some of the world’s richest countries is destroying children’s environments globally. This threatens both children worldwide and future generations. To provide all children with safe and healthy environments, governments, policymakers, businesses and all stakeholders are called to act on a set of policy recommendations.

One billion people in the world live with a disability; 240 million are children. The majority of the world’s children with disabilities live in low- and middle-income countries, where humanitarian crises are most likely to occur. Humanitarian crises increase the prevalence of child disability and the need for assistive technologies as children sustain new disabling injuries, children with disabilities lose their assistive devices, or access to limited existing health services is worsened by crisis. In addition, there are likely to be many more children with disabilities in humanitarian settings whose need for assistive technologies has never been identified. This literature review discusses the barriers to assistive technologies provision in humanitarian settings and considers possible entry points for provision in the future. Recommendations include: coordination platforms for provision; gathering evidence on existing in-country provision and strengthening those systems; designing programmes for provision that account for pre-existing barriers, within-crises barriers including those internal to humanitarian organizations like UNICEF.

AUTHOR(S)

Golnaz Whittaker; Gavin Wood
LANGUAGES:

79 items found