Search

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant changes to family life, society and essential health and other services. A rapid review of evidence was conducted to examine emerging evidence on the effects of the pandemic on three components of nurturing care, including responsive caregiving, early learning, and safety and security., Design: Two academic databases, organisational websites and reference lists were searched for original studies published between 1 January and 25 October 2020. A single reviewer completed the study selection and data extraction with verification by a second reviewer., Interventions: We included studies with a complete methodology and reporting on quantitative or qualitative evidence related to nurturing care during the pandemic., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Studies reporting on outcomes related to responsive caregiving, early learning, and safety and security were included., Results: The search yielded 4410 citations in total, and 112 studies from over 30 countries met our eligibility criteria. The early evidence base is weighted towards studies in high-income countries, studies related to caregiver mental health and those using quantitative survey designs. Studies reveal issues of concern related to increases in parent and caregiver stress and mental health difficulties during the pandemic, which was linked to harsher and less warm or responsive parenting in some studies. A relatively large number of studies examined child safety and security and indicate a reduction in maltreatment referrals. Lastly, studies suggest that fathers' engagement in caregiving increased during the early phase of the pandemic, children's outdoor play and physical activity decreased (while screen time increased), and emergency room visits for child injuries decreased., Conclusion: The results highlight key evidence gaps (ie, breastfeeding support and opportunities for early learning) and suggest the need for increased support and evidence-based interventions to ensure young children and other caregivers are supported and protected during the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Birth spacing is a critical pathway to improving reproductive health. WHO recommends a minimum of 33-month interval between two consecutive births to reduce maternal, perinatal, infant morbidity and mortality. Our study evaluated factors associated with short birth intervals (SBIs) of less than 33 months between two consecutive births, in Karachi, Pakistan., Methods: We used data from a cross-sectional study among married women of reproductive age (MWRA) who had at least one live birth in the 6 years preceding the survey (N=2394). Information regarding their sociodemographic characteristics, reproductive history, fertility preferences, family planning history and a 6-year reproductive calendar were collected. To identify factors associated with SBIs, we fitted simple and multiple Cox proportional hazards models and computed HRs with their 95% CIs., Results: The median birth interval was 25 months (IQR: 14-39 months), with 22.9% (833) of births occurring within 33 months of the index birth. Women's increasing age (25-30 years (aHR 0.63 (0.53 to 0.75), 30+ years (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.39) compared with 20-24 years; secondary education (aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88), intermediate education (aHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80), higher education (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92) compared with no education, and a male child of the index birth (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94) reduced the likelihood of SBIs. Women's younger age <20 years (aHR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24) compared with 20-24 years, and those who did not use contraception within 9 months of the index birth had a higher likelihood for SBIs for succeeding birth compared with those who used contraception (aHR 2.23, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.58)., Conclusion: Study shows that birth intervals in the study population are lower than the national average. To optimise birth intervals, programmes should target child spacing strategies and counsel MWRA on the benefits of optimal birth spacing, family planning services and contraceptive utilisation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess: (1) the impact of a reproductive health program on modern contraceptive use from baseline to program close; (2) the sustained impact from baseline to follow-up 36 months later; and (3) the exposure-adjusted impact at program close and follow-up., Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional matched control study., Setting: Karachi, Pakistan., Participants: 2561 married women aged 16-49 years., Interventions: The Willows Program, a community-based family planning counselling and referral program implemented from 2013 to 2015., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was community-level modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), measured for January 2013 (baseline), June 2015 (program close) and at follow-up 36 months later. A secondary outcome was exposure-adjusted mCPR (among women reporting a family planning home visit) at program close and at follow-up., Results: There was no significant effect on community-level mCPR at program close (2.4 percentage point increase in intervention over comparison; 95% CI -2.2 to 7.0) or at follow-up (1.9 percentage point decrease; 95% CI -6.7 to 2.8). Only 18% of women in the intervention area reported receiving a family planning visit in the preceding 5 years. Among those reporting a visit, we observed a significant 10.3 percentage point increase (95% CI 4.6 to 15.9) from baseline to close, and a non-significant 2.0 percentage point increase (95% CI -3.8 to 7.8) from baseline to follow-up, relative to matched women in the comparison area. The cost per new modern method user was US$1089, while the cost per user-year during the intervention period was US$455., Conclusions: The program had a positive short-term effect on women who received a family planning visit; however, this effect was not sustained. Program coverage was low and did not significantly increase community-level family planning use. Findings highlight the need to increase community coverage of high-quality counselling and contextually relevant interventions for family planning demand generation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)