Dataset Information

Men and sexual and reproductive healthcare in the Nordic countries: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Men generally seek healthcare less often than women and, other than traditional gender norms, less is known about the explanation. The aim was to identify knowledge gaps and factors influencing men regarding sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRHC) in the Nordic countries.

Methods

We searched PubMed and SveMed+ for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2010 and May 2020. The analyses identified factors influencing men's experiences of and access to SRHC.

Results

The majority of the 68 articles included focused on pregnancy, birth, infertility and sexually transmitted infections including HIV. During pregnancy and childbirth, men were treated as accompanying partners rather than individuals with their own needs. The knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers were crucial for their ability to provide SRHC and for the experiences of men. Organisational obstacles, such as women-centred SRHC and no assigned healthcare profession for men's sexual and reproductive health issues, hindered men's access to SRHC. Lastly, the literature rarely discussed the impact of health policies on men's access to SRHC.

Conclusions

The literature lacked the perspectives of specific groups of men such as migrants, men who have sex with men and transmen, as well as the experiences of men in SRHC related to sexual function, contraceptive use and gender-based violence. These knowledge gaps, taken together with the lack of a clear entry point for men into SRHC, indicate the necessity of an improved health and medical education of healthcare providers, as well as of health system interventions.

SUBMITTER: Baroudi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487177 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.ObjectiveThe aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992-2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.ResultsA total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.ConclusionThe utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused unforeseen impacts on sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH) services worldwide, and the nature and prevalence of these changes have not been extensively synthesized. We sought to synthesise reported outcomes on the impact of COVID-19 on SRH access and delivery in comparable countries with universal healthcare systems.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from January 1st, 2020 to June 6th, 2023. Original research was eligible for inclusion if the study reported on COVID-19 and SRH access and/or delivery. Twenty-eight OECD countries with comparable economies and universal healthcare systems were included. We extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, study design, and outcome variables. The methodological quality of each article was assessed using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for reporting the results. This study was registered on PROSPERO (#CRD42021245596).SynthesisEighty-two studies met inclusion criteria. Findings were qualitatively synthesised into the domains of: antepartum care, intrapartum care, postpartum care, assisted reproductive technologies, abortion access, gynaecological care, sexual health services, and HIV care. Research was concentrated in relatively few countries. Access and delivery were negatively impacted by a variety of factors, including service disruptions, unclear communication regarding policy decisions, decreased timeliness of care, and fear of COVID-19 exposure. Across outpatient services, providers favoured models of care that avoided in-person appointments. Hospitals prioritized models of care that reduced time and number of people in hospital and aerosol-generating environments.ConclusionsOverall, studies demonstrated reduced access and delivery across most domains of SRH services during COVID-19. Variations in service restrictions and accommodations were heterogeneous within countries and between institutions. Future work should examine long-term impacts of COVID-19, underserved populations, and underrepresented countries.

Project description:ObjectivesPharmacists are increasingly providing patient-focused services in community pharmacies, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Specific SRH areas have been the focus of research, but a broader perspective is needed to position pharmacists as SRH providers. This review explored research that described and evaluated professional pharmacy services across a broad range of SRH areas.DesignScoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library (January 2007-July 2020).Study selectionStudies reporting on the description and evaluation of professional pharmacy SRH services provided by community pharmacists.Data extractionTwo investigators screened studies for eligibility, and one investigator extracted the data. Data were analysed to primarily describe professional pharmacy services and intervention outcomes.ResultsForty-one studies were included. The main SRH areas and professional pharmacy services reported were sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections (63%) and screening (39%), respectively. Findings showed that pharmacists' delivery of SRH services was feasible, able to reach vulnerable and high-risk groups, and interventions were highly accepted and valued by users. However, integration into daily workflow, pharmacist remuneration, cost and reimbursement for patients, and policy regulations were some of the barriers identified to implementing SRH services. Studies were primarily in specific areas such as chlamydia screening or hormonal contraception prescribing, while studies in other areas (ie, medical abortion provision, long-acting reversible contraception prescribing and vaccine delivery in pregnant women) were lacking.ConclusionThis scoping review highlights the expansion of pharmacists' roles beyond traditional product-focused services in a number of SRH areas. Given the potential feasibility, users' acceptability and reach, pharmacists are ideally situated to enhance SRH care access. Future research describing implementation and evaluation of professional pharmacy services in all SRH areas is needed to promote access to these services through community pharmacies and position pharmacists as SRH providers worldwide.

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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Health education programmes (HEPs) have been associated with a number of benefits. These include providing individuals with information on matters related to their mental, social, physical as well as emotional health. HEPs also play a major role in preventing diseases and reducing the level of engagement of individuals in risky behaviours. While this is the case, there are barriers to the effective implementation of HEPs, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) where resources are scarce. Available evidence has revealed socioeconomic challenges ranging from literacy issues, discomfort about issues of sexuality, and cultural barriers to financial constraints as key barriers to the implementation of sexual and reproductive health HEPs in LMICs. We will focus on HEPs related to sexual and reproductive health; all age groups will be considered with no restrictions on geographical setting nor model of HEP delivery. This review will map literature on the barriers to the effective implementation of HEPs in LMICs to guide future implementation research. METHODS:Arksey and O'Malley's 2005 scoping methodological framework will act as the guide for this review. We will search the following electronic databases: EBSCOhost (Academic search complete, PsycINFO, Health Sources, CINAHL and MEDLINE with full text), Google Scholar, PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct and Web of Science. Grey literature from Mount Kenya University theses and dissertations, governments' as well as international organisations' reports, such as WHO, and reference lists of included studies will be searched for eligible studies. We will limit our search to publications from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2019. Using thematic content analysis, we will employ NVivo V.12 to extract the relevant outcomes from the included articles. We will conduct a quality appraisal of the included articles using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval is needed for the study as it will not include animal nor human participants. The results of the proposed scoping review will be disseminated electronically, in print and through conference presentation as well as at key stakeholder meetings.

Project description:BackgroundAs researchers and implementors begin to acknowledge the repercussions of institutionalized colonialism on community and individual health, the need to decolonize research has become clear. Despite this, there is neither a singular definition of decolonizing methodologies nor an overview of the shared principles and characteristics of decolonized research needed to codify this work as common practice in global health.ObjectiveThe review will identify papers that reference principles of decolonization and identify shared characteristics between them. The aim of this scoping review is to review decolonized research methodologies through the lens of sexual health as a step in creating a shared understanding of best practices. We will further examine the tools and methods used to collect and analyze data within the included studies.MethodsThe protocol for this scoping review was developed using the framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). The search strategy will comprise a search of electronic databases (JSTOR, Embase, EMCare, MEDLINE [Ovid], Global Health Database, Web of Science), gray literature sources, and key studies. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed by 2 or more independent reviewers against inclusion criteria. Bibliometric details, study design, methodology, community involvement, and other indicators will be collected using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Extracted data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of content and themes to identify common practices in decolonized methodologies within sexual health. Narrative summaries will be used to describe results in relation to the research question, and identified gaps will be discussed.ResultsThe initial title or abstract review of 4967 studies identified by the search strategy was completed in November 2022. In total, 1777 studies met initial inclusion criteria and were sent to a second round of title or abstract review, which was completed in January 2023. In total, 706 studies were downloaded for full-text inclusion, which is expected to be completed by April 2023. We aim to complete data extraction and analysis by May 2023 and expect to publish the findings by the end of July 2023.ConclusionsThere remains a gap in the research on the meaning and application of decolonized research strategies, particularly within sexual and reproductive health. The findings of this study will contribute to a shared definition of decolonized methodologies and how they can be applied as a common practice in global health research. Applications include the development of decolonized frameworks, theoretical discourses, and methodologies. The study will inform the design and implementation of future decolonized research and evaluation strategies, particularly around sexual and reproductive health.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/45771.