Introduction Self‐care interventions can improve access to healthcare, but their equitable implementation depends on addressing harmful gender norms and systemic barriers. This scoping review examines the relationship between women's autonomy and WHO‐recommended self‐care interventions for sexual health in the context of harmful gender norms and systemic health care barriers. Methods Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we searched databases for peer‐reviewed studies published between January 2019 and March 2025. From 8,814 records, 101 studies met inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using the WHO self‐care framework and a gender‐transformative lens. Results Self‐care interventions provided women with privacy and control over health decisions, mitigating judgement and discriminatory health and health care experiences. However, harmful gender such as stigma around women's bodies and sexuality sometimes hindered uptake of self‐care interventions. Unintended consequences included increased gender‐based violence in certain partner‐mediated self‐testing contexts. Despite challenges, self‐care interventions fostered autonomy and self‐efficacy enabling women to manage their sexual health independently and navigate gendered barriers. Key enablers included counseling, community engagement, and equitable access to tools. Conclusions Self‐care interventions have transformative potential for improving women's sexual health and advancing gender equality. Addressing systemic barriers and mitigating risks is crucial for facilitating uptake and continuation of self‐care practices. A gender‐transformative approach integrating supportive services, equitable distribution models, and community‐based strategies can enhance accessibility, affordability, and acceptability of self‐care interventions. These findings provide insights for designing policy and programmatic interventions to advance women's sexual and reproductive health rights by addressing harmful gender norms and promoting equality goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalbarczyk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: