This paper shares stories from six countries—Bangladesh, Nepal, Kenya, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq—highlighting the challenges communities face in accessing water. It seeks to bring forward the unique perspectives of communities from diverse backgrounds, each experiencing water crises in distinct ways. While climate change intensifies their crises, many communities also face marginalization due to exclusionary water governance. The impacts are further compounded by factors such as gender, poverty, ethnicity, and race. However, the voices and perspectives of these communities are often overlooked in global climate discussions.The paper aims to highlight these diverse community experiences and advocate for the inclusion of local voices and leadership in climate actions and interventions to ensure fairer access to water. As global climate events like COP-29 unfold, it calls on governments to create inclusive climate policies, integrate water issues into loss and damage discussions, actively involve women and local voices, and urge rich, polluting nations to compensate those most affected by historic and ongoing carbon emissions.

People in northern Kenya have suffered numerous severe economic and non-economic losses and damages due to repeated climate-related droughts and flooding. This briefing note provides an overview and lessons learned from a locally-led project funded by the Scottish government and recently implemented by Oxfam, Strategies for Northern Development and Merti Integrated Development Programme in northern Kenya. It provides support to local communities to address the losses and damages they have suffered. With the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage becoming operational and climate finance leading the agenda at COP29, this briefing shows the importance of ensuring access to funding and decision-making for communities and local organizations, that can design responses to loss and damage that are effective and suited to their needs.

A Private Sector Rapid Care Analysis toolkit (PS RCA) is a rapid process for businesses and workers to understand the heavy responsibility and long hours of unpaid care and domestic work (UCDW), usually done by women workers. The guide also makes the case for why private sector companies should address UCDW as part of workers’ rights and human rights, and it outlines the benefits to businesses of taking action. PS RCA discussions clarify how employment policies, workplace culture and practices may make unpaid care and domestic work more challenging for workers, with hidden costs for company operations. The PS RCA process helps identify opportunities for company action and builds commitment to change. The step-by-step guide is easy to follow for businesses, women’s rights and feminist organisations, civil society organisations, trade unions and other interested parties. The two accompanying webinars provide training and guidance for managers, champions and advocates on how to conduct a PS RCA (Webinar 1), and for facilitators on how to conduct the focus group exercises with workers (Webinar 2). This PS RCA Toolkit complements the original Participatory Methodology: Rapid Care Analysis that focuses on community and local government roles in addressing women’s heavy and unequal share of unpaid care and domestic work. The toolkit also complements broader gender equity audits and strategies for business. Get in touch: If you would like to make use of the toolkit, have any questions on the process; and/or would like a PowerPoint/ open version of the webinars, please contact policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk’

Digital technologies have the potential to either ameliorate or worsen the dynamics underlying poverty and inequality, depending on how those technologies are designed, developed, deployed, and used, as well as on the degree to which the businesses, and business models behind them, respect the rights of users and workers. This paper recommends changes in corporate and government policies and practices to ensure that the information and communication technology (ICT) industry respects human rights and does not exacerbate poverty and economic inequality across five pillars: access and equity, digital civic space, data use and privacy, automation and the future of work, and governance.

This document is an update of the 2014 Guidance and was developed by the UNEG Working Group on Gender Equality, Disability Inclusion and Human Rights. The original Guidance (2014) was produced as an in-depth guidance handbook to serve as a field guide to improve human rights and gender equality responsive evaluation throughout the UN system. It aimed at increasing knowledge on the application of these two approaches in evaluation processes but also at raising awareness on their specific relevance and significance for UN work. It complemented UNEG's Handbook "Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation: Towards UNEG Guidance," which outlined practical steps on how to prepare, conduct and use HR & GE responsive evaluations. This updated version (2024) is intended to guide evaluations and evaluation managers to undertake evaluations that are responsive to the needs of all individuals and communities by embracing the principle of "Leave No One Behind". It also considers now approaches in the incorporation of human rights principles, gender equality and the inclusion of other groups in vulnerable situtations in evaluations. Consequently, this updated Guidance document reflects evolving practice, needs and leassons.

Existing reporting checklists lack the necessary level of detail and comprehensiveness to be used in guidelines on Chinese patent medicines (CPM). This study aims to develop a reporting guidance for CPM guidelines based on the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We extracted information from CPM guidelines, existing reporting standards for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and the RIGHT statement and its extensions to form the initial pool of reporting items for CPM guidelines. Seventeen experts from diverse dis-ciplines participated in two rounds of Delphi process to refine and clarify the items. Finally, 18 authoritative consultants in the field of TCM and reporting guidelines reviewed and approved the RIGHT for CPM checklist. We added 16 new items and modified two items of the original RIGHT statement to form the RIGHT for CPM checklist, which contains 51 items grouped into seven sections and 23 topics. The new and revised items are distributed across four sections (Basic information, Background, Evidence, and Recommendations) and seven topics: title/subtitle (one new and one revised item), Registration information (one new item), Brief description of the health problem (four new items), Guideline development groups (one revised item), Health care questions (two new items), Recommendations (two new items), and Rationale/explanation for recommendations (six new items). The RIGHT for CPM checklist is committed to providing users with guidance for detailed, comprehensive and transparent reporting, and help practitioners better understand and implement CPM guidelines.

Objectives: Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for individuals with type 2 dia-betes mellitus (T2DM) may be inconsistent, and little is known about their quality. Our aim in this study was to systematically review the consistency of globally available CPGs containing nutritional recom-mendations for T2DM and to assess the quality of their methodology and reporting. Methods: PubMed, China Biology Medicine and 4 main guideline websites were searched. Four researchers independently assessed quality of the methodology and reporting using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, second edition (AGREE II) instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.Results: Fifteen CPGs include 65 nutritional recommendations with 6 sections: 1) body weight and energy balance; 2) dietary eating patterns; 3) macronutrients; 4) micronutrients and supplements; 5) alcohol; and 6) specific, functional foods. Current nutritional recommendations for individuals with T2DM on specific elements and amounts are not completely consistent in different CPGs and fail to assign the specific supporting evidence and strength of recommendations. To use nutritional recommendations to guide and manage individuals with T2DM, it is important to address the current challenges by establishing a solid evidence base and indicating the strength of recommendations. Overall, 8 CPGs classified as recommended for clinical practice used AGREE II. Fifteen CPGs adhere to <60% of RIGHT checklist items.Conclusions: High-quality evidence is needed to potentially close knowledge gaps and strengthen the recommendation. The AGREE II instrument, along with the RIGHT checklist, should be endorsed and used by CPG developers to ensure higher quality and adequate use of their products.(c) 2022 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Objective: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) have an indispensable role in guiding the selection of various treatments for insomnia, however, little is known about the quality of released insomnia CPGs. This study aims to critically appraise the quality of existing insomnia CPGs and identify quality limitations. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Biology Medicine disc, and 6 databases of international guideline developing institutions were systematically searched. CPGs on the diagnosis or treatment of insomnia were included. Reviewers independently extracted basic information and development methods, and assessed methodological quality and reporting quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement among reviewers and assess inter-rater reliability. Results: Twenty-six CPGs were identified that focused on adults, children, or children with autistic spectrum disorder, patients in the intensive care unit, patients with cancer and pregnant, lactating or menopausal women. Twenty-two CPGs used nine grading systems to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. 53.85% CPGs were classified as "recommended with modification" according to the AGREE II scores (ICC from 0.64 to 0.90), and 2 CPGs were "recommended". The "clarity of presentation" domain achieved the highest mean score (67.9% +/- 11.04%) but the "applicability" domain (37.1% +/- 12.67%) achieved the lowest. The average reporting rate of RIGHT items in all guidelines was 67.87%. Conclusions: The quality of guidelines varied substantially. Guideline developers should realize the importance of guideline applicability, patients' preferences and values. (c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined. Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%). Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

The United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS) provides the foundation for sustainable and transformative progress on disability inclusion through all pillars of the work of the United Nations. The Strategy consists of a system-wide policy and an accountability framework organized in 15 performance indicators. The indicator 10 of the UNDIS accountability framework assesses the extent to which an entity considers disability inclusion in all phases of the evaluation process and in every type of evaluation that it does. As part of the it's work plan in 2021, the UNEG Gender Equality, Disability and Human Rights Working Group commissioned the development of this guidance on the integration of disability inclusion in evaluations and reporting on the UNDIS evaluation indicator. The preparation of this guidance note was informed and enriched by consultations with a number of individuals and organizations, including organizations of persons with disabilities. The main expected users of the guidance are evaluation commissioners and managers, as well as external consultants conducting evaluations. On 10th March 2022, the UNEG Gender, Human Rights and Disability Inclusion Working Group organized an Evaluation Practice Exchange session to launch the UNEG Guidelines for Disability Inclusion in Evaluations and Reporting on the UNDIS. The session featured: An introduction and overview of the guidance; Remarks from the Executive Office of the Secretary General UNDIS Secretariat; and A panel discussion with UN evaluators on utility and application of the guidance in evaluations. The recording of the session can found on the UNEG YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/dG7l5yilo2g.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018. Study design and setting: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. Results: We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding. Conclusion: Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

Nowadays, the number of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines is constantly increasing, but its reporting quality remains unsatisfactory. One of the main reasons is that there is a lack of suitable reporting standard to guide it. In response to this long-standing problem, the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) Working Group has invited a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists and epidemiology, and developed the RIGHT Extension Statement for TCM (RIGHT-TCM) through a multi-staged development process, including systematic review, reporting quality evaluation and online Delphi expert consensus. The RIGHT-TCM extends two sections of the RIGHT Statement, includes basic information and recommendations section. Seven strong recommendation sub-items were added to RIGHT Statement and formed the final RIGHTTCM. The group hopes that the RIGHT-TCM may assist TCM guideline developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering TCM guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a TCM guideline. This article will introduce its background, development, recommendations and explanation.

Background Without adequate reporting of research, valuable time and resources are wasted. In the same vein, adequate reporting of practice guidelines to optimise patient care is equally important. Our study examines the quality of reporting of published WHO guidelines, over time, using the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare) reporting checklist. Methods We examined English-language guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee from inception of the committee in 2007 until 31 December 2017. Pairs of independent, trained reviewers assessed the reporting quality of these guidelines. Descriptive data were summarised with frequencies and percentages. Results We included 182 eligible guidelines. Overall, 25 out of the 34 RIGHT items were reported in 75% or more of the WHO guidelines. The reporting rates improved over time. Further, 90% of the guidelines reported document type in the title. The identification of evidence, the rationale for recommendations and the review process were reported in more than 80% of guidelines. The certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was assessed in 81% of the guidelines assessed. While 82% of guidelines reported funding sources, only 25% mentioned the role of funders. Conclusions WHO guidelines provide adequate reporting of many of the RIGHT items and reporting has improved over time. WHO guidelines compare favourably to guidelines produced by other organisations. However, reporting can be further improved in a number of areas.

This is a practical guide designed for UNEG members, policy and programme evaluators and others who advocate for a common approach to assessing progress of institutional gender mainstreaming (GM) in the United Nations system. This guide responds to recommendations from the UN Women (2015a) “Review of Corporate Gender Equality Evaluations in the United Nations System” , which was drafted in consultation with UNEG, EvalPartners, and EvalGender, and the revised Evaluation Performance Indicator for the United Nations System-wide Action Plan4 (UN-SWAP), which identifies a gender equality evaluation as necessary for “exceeding requirements.” The aim of the guidance is to encourage UN entities to conduct more evaluations of their respective institution’s GM approach to improve results, and to enhance coherence of information across the UN system on progress made towards gender equality and empowerment of women (GEWE).

This publication provides a snapshot of good practices, links to the evaluation reports, and is organized around the current EPI criteria for assessing evaluation reports as a means for further supporting UNEG members to “meet requirements”. This publication does not capture all the good practices that have been employed by UNEG members. Instead, it provides an overview of different types of actions being undertaken by the diverse members that constitute UNEG. It aims to facilitate learning within UNEG and beyond and contribute to a common understanding on how to integrate gender equality in evaluation practice within the UN system and beyond.

The UNEG Working Group on Gender Equality and Human Rights (GE & HR) supports UNEG members to enhance integration of GE & HR in evaluation in accordance with the UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN System, UNEG Guidance on Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation (2024), and the CEB-endorsed Evaluation Performance Indicator (EPI) of the United Nations System Wide Action Plan for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (UN-SWAP). This page houses key information in support of UNEG members for reporting against the UN-SWAP EPI. UN SWAP EPI - Technical Note, Scorecard & FAQ The Technical Note and Scorecard were issued and endorsed by UNEG Heads in 2014. These should be followed for reporting against the UN-SWAP EPI. This ensures a minimum level of coherence across UN system agencies for reporting on how gender equality was integrated in evaluation reports. UN-SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator - Technical Note and Scorecard (2018) UN-SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator – Scorecard (Excel) Frequently Asked Questions - UN-SWAP EPI Reporting UN-SWAP EPI - Peer Learning Exchange – Guidance and Lessons learned In 2015, the UNEG GE & HR Working Group launched a peer learning exchange to facilitate learning from the UN-SWAP EPI reporting process and provide a means for obtaining an external perspective on the extent to which gender equality was integrated in the respective entities’ reports. Guidance for UN-SWAP EPI Peer Learning Exchange Lessons learned from 2016 Peer Learning Exchange Integrating gender equality in evaluation - UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle Trends, Analysis and Good Practices 2023 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2022 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2021 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2020 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2019 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2018 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2016 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2015 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle 2014 UN-SWAP EPI Reporting Cycle

This report was produced by UNEG as an in-depth guidance handbook to serve as a field guide to improve human rights and gender equality responsive evaluation throughout the UN system. It is aimed at increasing knowledge on the application of these two approaches in evaluation processes but also at raising awareness on their specific relevance and significance for UN work. It complements the 2011 Guidance "Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation: Towards UNEG Guidance," an abridged version that outlines practical steps on how to prepare, conduct and use HR & GE responsive evaluations. The present document deepens each of these aspects, and provides additional theoretical and applied information, tools and suggestions.

The UNEG Norms and Standards highlight the need for people centred evaluation and for evaluators to consider human rights and gender equality in their work but there has continued to be a gap in tools and frameworks for evaluation that fully reflect these considerations. This Handbook was developed by UNEG to be used as a tool to integrate human rights and gender equality into the practice of evaluation. This document was followed in 2014 by the UNEG Guidance Document, Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations.