Self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights: costs, benefits, and financing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Remme M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6441864 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights: costs, benefits, and financing.
Remme Michelle M Narasimhan Manjulaa M Wilson David D Ali Moazzam M Vijayasingham Lavanya L Ghani Fatima F Allotey Pascale P
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20190401
Similar Datasets
Project description:Self-care interventions for health are becoming increasingly available, and among the preferred options, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research assessed the extent of attention to laws and policies, human rights and gender in the implementation of self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health (SRH), to identify where additional efforts to ensure an enabling environment for their use and uptake will be useful. A literature review of relevant studies published between 2010 and 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Relevant data were systematically abstracted from 61 articles. In March-April 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants, selected for their experience implementing self-care interventions for SRH, and thematically analysed. Laws and policies, rights and gender are not being systematically addressed in the implementation of self-care interventions for SRH. Within countries, there is varied attention to the enabling environment including the acceptability of interventions, privacy, informed consent and gender concerns as they impact both access and use of specific self-care interventions, while other legal considerations appear to have been under-prioritised. Operational guidance is needed to develop and implement supportive laws and policies, as well as to ensure the incorporation of rights and gender concerns in implementing self-care interventions for SRH.
| S-EPMC9387312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are centrally important to health. However, there have been significant shortcomings in implementing SRHR to date. In the context of health systems reform and universal health coverage/care (UHC), this paper explores the following questions. What do these changes in health systems thinking mean for SRHR and gender equity in health in the context of renewed calls for increased investments in the health of women and girls? Can SRHR be integrated usefully into the call for UHC, and if so how? Can health systems reforms address the continuing sexual and reproductive ill health and violations of sexual and reproductive rights (SRR)? Conversely, can the attention to individual human rights that is intrinsic to the SRHR agenda and its continuing concerns about equality, quality and accountability provide impetus for strengthening the health system? The paper argues that achieving equity on the UHC path will require a combination of system improvements and services that benefit all, together with special attention to those whose needs are great and who are likely to fall behind in the politics of choice and voice (i.e., progressive universalism paying particular attention to gender inequalities).
| S-EPMC4318007 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSelf-care as an extension of health care systems can increase access to care. The development of programs and generation of evidence to support self-care in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is a relatively nascent field. We undertook a study to identify and prioritize evidence gaps for SRH self-care.MethodsWe used the CHNRI methodology and administered two online surveys to stakeholders affiliated with major self-care networks. The first survey was used to identify evidence gaps, and the second to prioritize them using predetermined criteria.ResultsWe received 51 responses to the first survey and 36 responses to the second. Many evidence gaps focused on awareness of and demand for self-care options and best mechanisms for supporting users of self-care with information, counseling and linkages to care.ConclusionA priority area of work ahead should be determining which aspects of the learning agenda reflect gaps in evidence and which reflect a need to effectively synthesize and disseminate existing evidence.
| S-EPMC10285388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-care is the ability of individuals, families, and communities to promote health, prevent disease, maintain health, and manage illness and disability with or without a health care provider. In resource-constrained settings with disrupted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service coverage and access, SRH self-care could play a critical role. Despite SRH conditions being among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity among women of reproductive age in humanitarian and fragile settings, there are currently no reviews of self-care interventions in these contexts to guide policy and practice.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review to identify the design, implementation, and outcomes of self-care interventions for SRH in humanitarian and fragile settings. We defined settings of interest as locations with appeals for international humanitarian assistance or identified as fragile and conflict-affected situations by the World Bank. SRH self-care interventions were described according to those aligned with the Minimum Initial Services Package for Reproductive Health in Crises. We searched six databases for records using keywords guided by the PRISMA statement. The findings of each included paper were analysed using an a priori framework to identify information concerning effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of the self-care intervention, places where self-care interventions were accessed and factors relating to the environment that enabled the delivery and uptake of the interventions.ResultsWe identified 25 publications on SRH self-care implemented in humanitarian and fragile settings including ten publications on maternal and newborn health, nine on HIV/STI interventions, two on contraception, two on safe abortion care, one on gender-based violence, and one on health service provider perspectives on multiple interventions. Overall, the findings show that well-supported self-care interventions have the potential to increase access to quality SRH for crisis-affected communities. However, descriptions of interventions, study settings, and factors impacting implementation offer limited insight into how practical considerations for SRH self-care interventions differ in stable, fragile, and crisis-affected settings.ConclusionIt is time to invest in self-care implementation research in humanitarian settings to inform policies and practices that are adapted to the needs of crisis-affected communities and tailored to the specific health system challenges encountered in such contexts.
| S-EPMC9172979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) for sexual and reproductive health (SRH) requires informed budgeting that is aligned with UHC objectives. We draw data from Adding It Up 2019 (AIU-2019) to provide critical new country-level and regional, intervention-specific costs for the provision of SRH services. AIU-2019 is a cost-outcomes analysis, undertaken from the health system perspective, which estimates the costs and impacts of offering SRH care in low- and middle-income countries. We present direct cost estimates for 109 SRH interventions and find that human resources comprise the largest category of direct SRH service costs and that the most expensive services in the model are largely preventable. We use scenario analysis to explore the synergistic costs and impacts of providing SRH interventions in clusters, focussing on chlamydia and gonorrhoea treatment, provision of safe abortion and post-abortion care services, and safe childbirth services. When costs are considered for the preventive and impacted services in these three clusters, there are cost savings for some of the impacted services in the packages and for the abortion-related package overall. The direct cost estimates from our analysis can be used to guide UHC budgeting and planning efforts. Having these cost estimates and understanding the potential for cost savings when providing comprehensive SRH services are critical for efforts to fulfil the rights and needs of all individuals, including the most marginalised, to access this essential care.
| S-EPMC7446030 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4813610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) interventions are underfunded in Ghana. We explored stakeholder perspectives on innovative and sustainable financing strategies for priority ASRH interventions in Ghana.MethodsUsing qualitative design, we interviewed 36 key informants to evaluate sustainable financing sources for ASRH interventions in Ghana. Thematic content analysis of primary data was performed. Study reporting followed the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.ResultsProposed conventional financing strategies included tax-based, need-based, policy-based, and implementation-based approaches. Unconventional financing strategies recommended involved getting religious groups to support ASRH interventions as done to mobilize resources for the Ghana COVID-19 Trust Fund during the global pandemic. Other recommendations included leveraging existing opportunities like fundraising through annual adolescent and youth sporting activities to support ASRH interventions. Nonetheless, some participants believed financial, material, and non-material resources must complement each other to sustain funding for priority ASRH interventions.ConclusionThere are various sustainable financing strategies to close the funding gap for ASRH interventions in Ghana, but judicious management of financial, material, and non-material resources is needed to sustain priority ASRH interventions in Ghana.
| S-EPMC10964666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are an essential component of universal health coverage (UHC). In determining which SRHR interventions to include in their UHC benefits package, countries are advised to evaluate each service based on robust and reliable data, including cost-effectiveness data. We conducted a scoping review of full economic evaluations of the essential SRHR interventions included in the comprehensive package presented by the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on SRHR. Of the 462 economic evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, the quantity of publications varied across regions, countries, and the components of the SRHR package, with the majority of publications reporting on HIV/AIDS, reproductive cancer, as well as antenatal care, childbirth, and postnatal care. Systematic reviews are needed for these components in support of more conclusive findings and actionable recommendations for programmes and policy. Further evaluations for interventions included in the remaining components are needed to provide a stronger evidence base for decision-making. The economic evaluations reviewed for this article were inherently varied in their applied methodologies, SRHR interventions and comparators, cost and effectiveness data, and cost-effectiveness thresholds, among others. Despite these differences, the vast majority of publications reported the evaluated SRHR interventions to be cost-effective.
| S-EPMC8583757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth technology assessment uses a multidisciplinary approach to support health benefits package design towards universal health coverage. The evidence-informed deliberative process framework has been used alongside Health technology assessment to enhance stakeholder participation and deliberations in health benefits package design. Applying the evidence-informed deliberative framework for Health assessment could support the morally diverse sexual reproductive health and rights (SRHR) benefits package design process. However, evidence on participation and deliberations for stakeholders in health technology assessment for SRHR benefits package design has not been curated in sub-Saharan Africa. This study synthesises literature to fill this gap.MethodsThis scoping review applies the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews, and deductive analysis following the evidence-informed deliberative processes framework. The search strategy uses the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission-proposed comprehensive definition of SRHR and the World Health Organisation's universal health coverage compendium of SRHR interventions to generate search terms. Six databases and biographical hand searches were used to identify studies in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1994.ResultsA total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Evidence for yearly public budgets and explicit SRHR health technology assessment processes was not found. In 12 of the studies reviewed, new advisory committees were set up specifically for health technology assessment for SRHR priority-setting and benefits package design. In all decision-making processes reviewed, the committee member roles, participation and deliberations processes, and stakeholder veto powers were not clearly defined. Patients, the public, and producers of health technology were often excluded in the health technology assessment for the SRHR benefits package design. Most health technology assessment processes identified at least one decision-making criterion but failed to use this in their selection and appraisal stages for SRHR benefits design. The identification, selection, and scoping stages in health technology assessment for SRHR were non-existent in most studies. In 11 of the 14 processes of the included studies, stakeholders were dissatisfied with the health policy recommendation from the appraisal process in health technology assessment. Perceived benefits for evidence-informed deliberative processes included increased stakeholder engagement and fairness in decision-making.ConclusionTo support the integration of diverse social values in health technology assessment for fairer SRHR benefits package design, evidence from this review suggests the need to institutionalise health technology assessment, establish prioritisation decision criteria, involve all relevant stakeholders, and standardise the process and assessment methodological approaches.
| S-EPMC11210850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany of the 35 million women and girls aged 15-49 requiring humanitarian assistance have inadequate access to the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to which they are entitled. Ensuring accountability is critical to realizing their SRH and reproductive rights (RR).ObjectivesThis scoping review examines the extent and nature of existing evidence on accountability strategies for SRH in humanitarian settings in different geographical scopes/contexts, and contextualizes these findings in the larger thematic literature. This review seeks to answer the following questions: What accountability strategies are employed to address the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of SRH in humanitarian settings? What do we know about the successes and challenges of the given strategies? What are the implications for practice?MethodsWe consulted public health, social science, and legal databases including SCOPUS, PubMed, ProQuest, and LexisNexis for peer-reviewed articles, as well as Google Advanced search for grey literature; the search was conducted in March 2019. We searched for relevant articles and documents relating to accountability, humanitarian, and SRH and/or RR. To identify key challenges not reflected in the literature and additional grey literature, 18 key informants from international NGOs, local government bodies, academia, and donor agencies were interviewed from March-June 2019.ResultsA total of 209 papers and documents were identified via our literature searches and interviews for review. We identified three categories of approaches to accountability in our background reading, and we then applied these to the papers reviewed a priori. We created a fourth category based on our findings. The categories include: (1) humanitarian principles, codes of conduct, and legal instruments; (2) technical, performance, and impact standards; (3) efforts to solicit and address the rights and needs of the affected populations, or "listening and responding," and, (4) accountability demands made by affected populations themselves. Almost all papers identified referred to challenges to realizing accountability in humanitarian contexts. There are promising accountability approaches - some specific to SRH and some not - such as open-ended feedback from affected populations, quality improvement, and practical application of standards. Reflecting a largely top down orientation, papers concentrate on accountability mechanisms within humanitarian work, with much less focus on supporting affected populations to deepen their understanding of structural causes of their position, understand their entitlements, or access justice.ConclusionIn the last 20 years, there has been increasing standard and guideline development and program experiences related to accountability in humanitarian settings. Yet, the emphasis is on tools or mechanisms for accountability with less attention to changing norms regarding SRH and RR within affected communities, and to a lesser extent, among implementers of humanitarian programs or to institutionalizing community participation.
| S-EPMC7137319 | biostudies-literature