In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in Canada has come under intense scrutiny, revealing a complex web of challenges and missed opportunities. The pandemic has been more than a health crisis—it has functioned as a magnifying glass, bringing to light persistent systemic inequities entrenched within social structures. Despite the Canadian government’s well-meaning policy commitments to GBA+, new research demonstrates a significant gap between intentions and actual outcomes. A recent study by Tiwana, Hollmann, and Smith, published in the International Journal for Equity in Health, meticulously unpacks these divergences, exposing why attempts to integrate GBA+ during the pandemic were fraught with systemic and operational hurdles.
The concept of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is rooted in the recognition that policies do not affect all individuals equally. GBA+ seeks to consider gender alongside other intersecting identity factors such as race, ethnicity, age, disability, and socioeconomic status when formulating public policies. Its goal is to enhance equity by identifying how diverse groups are differently impacted by government programs and legislation. In Canada, GBA+ is a mandated process within federal departments; however, this new scholarly work reveals that, during an unprecedented crisis, the implementation mechanisms faltered substantially.
According to the study, while there was strong rhetorical commitment to applying a gender and intersectional equity lens during the pandemic response, actual application in health and social policies often remained superficial or symbolic. The authors utilize extensive qualitative and quantitative data, including interviews with policymakers and frontline workers, to reveal significant discrepancies between policy declarations and delivery outcomes. One of the critical technical issues identified involved inconsistent data collection methodologies that failed to capture nuanced demographic information, rendering targeted interventions ineffective.
This failure in data granularity and accuracy worsened the visibility of marginalized groups who suffered disproportionately from COVID-19’s impact. The researchers highlight that Indigenous communities, racialized populations, women in precarious employment, and persons with disabilities often fell through the cracks due to inadequate disaggregated data, which is essential for precise GBA+ analysis. Despite the existence of frameworks for collecting intersectional data, operationalizing these in real-time emergency response settings proved near impossible, revealing structural limitations in both capacity and mandate clarity.
Another key dimension explored in the study is the strain on institutional capacity, which was widely documented during the pandemic. Government departments responsible for GBA+ implementation experienced significant resource diversion to urgent pandemic measures, causing expertise and infrastructure dedicated to inclusive policy analysis to be sidelined. The report underscores that crisis-driven policymaking tends to prioritize speed and uniformity over complexity and nuance, directly undermining the careful consideration needed for effective GBA+ integration.
The authors also navigate the politics surrounding GBA+, noting that ideological resistance and bureaucratic inertia played nontrivial roles in delaying or weakening its uptake. While GBA+ has supporters within federal agencies and activist circles, it has encountered skepticism and pushback from factions perceiving it as bureaucratic red tape or politically contentious. This polarized environment hampered cooperative governance and diluted coordinated efforts essential for intersectional equity, especially in swiftly evolving pandemic contexts.
In addition to policy ecosystems, the study investigates how GBA+ gaps manifested in frontline health and social services during COVID-19. The pandemic’s disproportionate economic and health burdens on women, particularly those in caregiving and essential worker roles, were well-documented globally. However, the researchers stress that Canadian policies often failed to provide adequate targeted support, partly due to a lack of nuanced needs assessments grounded in GBA+. For example, shortfalls in childcare provisions, mental health resources, and workplace protections disproportionately impacted these groups, exacerbating existing inequities.
The research sheds light on notable examples where GBA+ principles were underutilized or absent in pandemic responses. The analysis of financial aid distribution reveals that many relief programs did not account for intersecting vulnerabilities such as income precarity combined with racial discrimination. Similarly, vaccination campaign strategies often lacked culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach modalities, marginalizing racialized communities and limiting equitable access. These shortcomings underline the operational disconnect between policy frameworks and real-world inclusivity.
Methodologically, the study employed a mixed methods approach, triangulating policy analysis, detailed stakeholder interviews, and demographic data reviews. This comprehensive strategy allowed the researchers to parse complex dynamics shaping GBA+ implementation throughout the pandemic lifecycle—from early crisis management to the recovery phases. Their findings offer critical insight into how emergency governance contexts present unique challenges for embedding equity-centered approaches without compromising responsiveness.
The implications of these findings extend well beyond the Canadian context. As other nations grapple with similar equity concerns amid ongoing and future health crises, the study provides a cautionary tale and guidepost. Efficient and meaningful intersectional analysis requires robust institutional frameworks, ample resourcing, and political commitment that endures beyond symbolic gestures. It calls for a reimagining of emergency policy design to integrate equity proactively, rather than retroactively.
Critically, the research also highlights the necessity of refined data infrastructures. Governments must develop and maintain systems capable of capturing intersectional demographic indicators rapidly and accurately. Without this, comprehensive analysis remains aspirational rather than actionable. The authors advocate for investment in capacity building at multiple levels, emphasizing that equity is not a luxury add-on but a fundamental component of effective crisis management.
Moreover, fostering inclusive and participatory policy design processes emerged as a pivotal recommendation. Engaging community representatives, particularly from historically marginalized groups, throughout policy formulation and implementation can enhance relevance and responsiveness. The study indicates that such collaboration remains limited and calls for deliberate efforts to institutionalize consultative mechanisms.
The research invites reflection on how bureaucratic culture and political will intersect to shape equity outcomes. It stresses the importance of leadership endorsing and normalizing GBA+ as a fundamental analytical tool, not merely a procedural checkbox. Embedding equity-oriented thinking into the organizational DNA of public institutions may mitigate resistance and enable more agile adaptations to evolving crises.
In conclusion, the study by Tiwana, Hollmann, and Smith exposes a paradox deeply entrenched in the Canadian pandemic response: a desire for equity stymied by systemic barriers. Their work challenges policymakers, researchers, and advocates to move beyond well-intentioned but insufficiently executed commitments. To truly achieve intersectional equity during public health emergencies, GBA+ must be equipped with adequate resources, political support, and institutional integration. As the world confronts ongoing and future health shocks, these lessons resonate universally, underscoring the urgent imperative to transform equity from aspiration to reality.
Subject of Research: Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) implementation and gaps during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Article Title: “They wanted to, but they just couldn’t get there”: GBA + implementation and gaps during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Article References:
Tiwana, M.H., Hollmann, L. & Smith, J. “They wanted to, but they just couldn’t get there”: GBA + implementation and gaps during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Int J Equity Health 24, 152 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02522-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
