Search

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) and child marriage are prevalent in many countries in Asia and Africa. These practices are a violation of human rights and have significant impacts on the physical and mental well-being of those affected. COVID-19 restrictions such as lockdowns and closure of schools may have influenced the occurrence of FGM/C and child marriage. This analysis reported on the impact of these restrictions on FGM/C and child marriage. The International Sexual Health And REproductive Health (I-SHARE) research team organised a multi-country online survey. Sampling methods included convenience samples, online panels, and population-representative samples. Data collected included the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the occurrence, intention to practice and change in plans to organise FGM/C and child marriage. Data were analysed from 14 countries that reported on FGM/C and child marriage using basic descriptive statistics. Given it was an online survey, we had more responses from urban areas. Among the 22,724 overall participants, 8,829 participants (38.9%) responded to the survey items on FGM/C and child marriage and were included in this analysis. 249 (3.4%) participants stated that FGM/C occurred in their community during COVID-19. Out of this, COVID-19 affected the plans of 26 (20%) participants intending to organise circumcision and 15% of participants planned to organise FGM/C earlier. People with a worry about finances during COVID-19 were more likely to have an earlier plan to organise FGM/C during COVID-19. In total, 1,429 (13%) participants reported that child marriage occurred in their community. The pandemic affected plans of 52 (13%) participants intending to arrange child marriage and 7.7% (29/384) participants expressed intent to arrange the marriage sooner than planned. People with financial insecurities during COVID-19 were more likely to arrange a child marriage earlier. Thus, our study found that the pandemic impacted plans related to FGM/C and child marriage practices, resulting in many carrying out the practices sooner or later than initially planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health., Author(s): Eneyi E. Kpokiri 1, Elizabeth Chen 2, Jingjing Li 3, Sarah Payne 4, Priyanka Shrestha 5, Kaosar Afsana 6, Uche Amazigo 7, Phyllis Awor 8, Jean-Francois de Lavison 9, [...]

Background: Institutional research mentorship is a form of mentorship whereby institutions foster mentor-mentee relationships. Research mentorship improves research effectiveness and supports relationships. However, resources are needed in order to institutionalize research mentorship tailored to low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus document on institutionalizing research mentorship through a modified Delphi process as part of the practical guide development process. Methods: This study used a two-round modified Delphi process, which is an iterative, structured approach of consensus decision making. Each participant was asked about a series of items related to research mentorship using Likert scale questions. Agreement for each item was pre-defined as ≥80% of participants rating the item as "agree" or "strongly agree." The items that reached agreement, were then discussed during round two at an in-person conference in Ethiopia. A separate group of individuals only participated virtually. For the final consensus survey, response rates and commenting rates (participants who wrote two or more comments) were compared among conference and non-conference participants. Results: The Delphi process led to the inception of three main themes in terms of developing research mentorship: leveraging existing resources, measuring and evaluating institutional mentorship, and encouraging a research mentorship life cycle. During the virtual first round, 59% (36/61) participants who were emailed completed the survey. In the second round, conference participants had a response rate of 79% (11/14) compared to non-conference participants with a response rate of 45% (21/47). Conference participants had a 100% (11/11) commenting rate whereas non-conference participants had a 38% (8/21) commenting rate. This study achieved consensus in both survey rounds for all 35 items on the consensus document. Conclusions: The data suggest that an in-person conference may increase participant engagement. The consensus developed through a modified Delphi method directly informed a practical guide on institutionalizing research mentorship in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]