Search

Housing is a paradigmatic example of a social determinant of health, as it influences and is influenced by structural determinants, such as social, macroeconomic, and public policies, politics, education, income, and ethnicity/race, all intersecting to shaping the health and well-being of populations. It can therefore be argued that housing policy is critically linked to health policy. However, the extent to which this linkage is understood and addressed in public policies is limited and highly diverse across and within countries. This analysis seeks to describe the linkages between housing policies and health and well-being using examples from three countries at different levels of the wealth spectrum: Singapore, the UK, and Kenya. We conducted a comparative policy analysis across three country contexts (Singapore, the UK, and Kenya) to document the extent to which housing policies address health and well-being, highlighting commonalities and differences among them. To guide our analysis, we used the United Nations (UN) definition of adequate housing as it offers a broad framework to analyze the impact of housing on health and well-being. The anatomy of housing policies has a strong correlation to the provision of adequate housing across Singapore, the UK, and Kenya, especially for vulnerable groups. The paper demonstrates that contextual factors including population composition (i.e., aging versus youthful), political ideologies, legal frameworks (i.e., welfare versus market-based provision of housing), and presence (or absence) of adequate, quality, timely, reliable, robust data systems for decision-making, which are taken up by stakeholders/state, have strong implications of the type of housing policies developed and implemented, in turn directly and indirectly impacting the overall health and well-being of populations. This analysis demonstrates the value of viewing housing policies as public health policies that could significantly impact the health and well-being of populations, especially vulnerable groups. Moreover, the findings highlight the importance of the Health in All Policies approach to facilitate integrated policy responses to address social determinants of health such as housing. This is more critical than ever, given the context of the global pandemic that has led to worsening overall health and well-being.

More than a decade after the World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), it is becoming widely accepted that social and economic factors, including but not limited to education, energy, income, race, ethnicity, and housing, are important drivers of health in populations. Despite this understanding, in most contexts, social determinants are not central to local, national, or global decision-making. Greater clarity in conceptualizing social determinants, and more specificity in measuring them, can move us forward towards better incorporating social determinants in decision-making for health. In this paper, first, we summarize the evolution of the social framing of health. Second, we describe how the social determinants are conceptualized and contextualized differently at the global, national, and local levels. With this, we seek to demonstrate the importance of analyzing and understanding SDoH relative to the contexts in which they are experienced. Third, we problematize the gap in data across contexts on different dimensions of social determinants and describe data that could be curated to better understand the influence of social determinants at the local and national levels. Fourth, we describe the necessity of using data to understand social determinants and inform decision-making to improve health. Our overall goal is to provide a path for our collective understanding of the foundational causes of health, facilitated by advances in data access and quality, and realized through improved decision-making.

A key obstacle to advocacy efforts to promote legal and policy reforms that ensure women's and girls' access to comprehensive abortion care (CAC) is the lack of relevant and timely evidence. This commentary outlines a research agenda-setting initiative that identified research priorities to support evidence-informed policy and advocacy for CAC access in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It involved three phases: 1) a landscape analysis; 2) research agenda co-creation with stakeholders, and 3) a validation exercise on research priorities. Overall, the priority evidence needs included 1) estimating the incidence and magnitude of unsafe abortion and related costs; 2) examining the role of abortion laws and policies in facilitating or inhibiting access to CAC; 3) developing and documenting successful approaches for addressing societal barriers to the provision of CAC, and fostering a more inclusive and liberal abortion environment, and 4) documenting practice-based evidence on the provision of legal abortion services as well as for advocating for CAC. Various stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, civil society organizations, and funding agencies, will find the agenda useful as they engage, at different levels, for the full domestication and implementation of forward-looking commitments on access to CAC in SSA.

Introduction Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal mortality, and access to safe abortion services remains a public health priority in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A considerable amount of abortion research exists in the region; however, the spread of existing evidence is uneven such that some countries have an acute shortage of data with others over-researched. The imbalance reflects the complexities in prioritization among researchers, academics, and funders, and undeniably impedes effective policy and advocacy efforts. This scoping review aims to identify and map the landscape of abortion research in SSA, summarize existing knowledge, and pinpoint significant gaps, both substantive and geographic, requiring further investigation. This review will provide direction for future research, investments, and offer guidance for policy and programming on safe abortion. Materials and methods We utilize the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for conducting scoping reviews. We will perform the search for articles in 8 electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, AJOL, Science Direct, SCOPUS, HINARI, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and WHO Regional Databases). We will include studies written in English or French language, produced or published between January 1, 2011, and July 31, 2021, and pertain directly to the subject of abortion in SSA. Using a tailored extraction frame, we will extract relevant information from publications that meet the inclusion criteria. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis in response to key review questions. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required, as no primary data will be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Population health surveys are rarely comprehensive in addressing sexual health, and population-representative surveys often lack standardised measures for collecting comparable data across countries. We present a sexual health survey instrument and implementation considerations for population-level sexual health research. The brief, comprehensive sexual health survey and consensus statement was developed via a multi-step process (an open call, a hackathon, and a modified Delphi process). The survey items, domains, entire instruments, and implementation considerations to develop a sexual health survey were solicited via a global crowdsourcing open call. The open call received 175 contributions from 49 countries. Following review of submissions from the open call, 18 finalists and eight facilitators with expertise in sexual health research, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), were invited to a 3-day hackathon to harmonise a survey instrument. Consensus was achieved through an iterative, modified Delphi process that included three rounds of online surveys. The entire process resulted in a 19-item consensus statement and a brief sexual health survey instrument. This is the first global consensus on a sexual and reproductive health survey instrument that can be used to generate cross-national comparative data in both high-income and LMICs. The inclusive process identified priority domains for improvement and can inform the design of sexual and reproductive health programs and contextually relevant data for comparable research across countries.

Summary box The sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region has one of the poorest adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) indicators, and a multiplicity of structural and sociocultural factors contribute to these poor adolescent SRH outcomes.1–3 Prevailing sociocultural and religious beliefs characterise adolescent sexuality as a taboo.4 5 As a result, interventions or policies aiming to improve adolescent SRH outcomes face significant opposition.6 …

Population health surveys are rarely comprehensive in addressing sexual health, and population-representative surveys often lack standardized measures for collecting comparable data across countries. We present a sexual health survey instrument and implementation considerations for population-level sexual health research. The brief, comprehensive sexual health survey and consensus statement was developed via a multi-step process (an open call, a hackathon, and a modified Delphi process). The survey items, domains, entire instruments, and implementation considerations to develop a sexual health survey were solicited via a global crowdsourcing open call. The open call received 175 contributions from 49 countries. Following review of submissions from the open call, 18 finalists and eight facilitators with expertise in sexual health research, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), were invited to a 3-day hackathon to harmonize a survey instrument. Consensus was achieved through an iterative, modified Delphi process that included three rounds of online surveys. The entire process resulted in a 19-item consensus statement and a 10-minute sexual health survey instrument. This is the first global consensus on a sexual and reproductive health survey instrument that can be used to generate cross-national comparative data in both high-income and LMICs. The inclusive process identified priority domains for improvement and can inform the design of sexual and reproductive health programs and contextually relevant data for comparable research across countries.Key points–National population-representative surveys assessing sexual practices, behaviours and health-related outcomes focus on high-income countries and different sexual health measures are often used.–There is a lack of population-level representative sexual health research in low- and middle-income countries.–Existing comparable data on sexual practices and behaviours across countries are limited due to the absence of a standardized global sexual health survey instrument.–We report the global consensus on a set of core sexual health items within a 10-minute survey instrument that accommodates the needs and priorities of people from LMICs and various legal and cultural contexts across countries.–The consensus process breaks new ground in terms of incorporating feedback from diverse individuals using a crowdsourcing open call and hackathon process.

IntroductionPrevious studies have attempted to review the vast body of evidence on adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH), but none has focused on a complete mapping and synthesis of the body of inquiry and evidence on ASRH in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Such a comprehensive scoping is needed, however, to offer direction to policy, programming and future research. We aim to undertake a scoping review of studies on ASRH in SSA to capture the landscape of extant research and findings and identify gaps for future research.Methods and analysisThis protocol is designed using the framework for scoping reviews developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include English and French language peer-reviewed publications and grey literature on ASRH (aged 10–19) in SSA published between January 2010 and June 2019. A three-step search strategy involving an initial search of three databases to refine the keywords, a full search of all databases and screening of references of previous review studies for relevant articles missing from our full search will be employed. We will search AJOL, JSTOR, HINARI, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the websites for the WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNESCO and Guttmacher Institute. Two reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of publications for eligibility and inclusion—using Covidence (an online software). We will then extract relevant information from studies that meet the inclusion criteria using a tailored extraction frame and template. Extracted data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results will be presented using tables and charts and summaries of key themes arising from available research findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for a scoping review as it synthesises publicly available publications. Dissemination will be through publication in a peer-review journal and presentation at relevant conferences and convening of policymakers and civil society organisations working on ASRH in SSA.

As a follow up to OpenCon 2014, International Federation of Medical Students' Associations (IFMSA) students organized a 3 day workshop Open Access, Open Education Resources and Open Data in Kampala from 15-18 December 2014. One of the aims of the workshop was to engage the Open Access movement in Uganda which encompasses the scientific community, librarians, academia, researchers and students. The IFMSA students held the workshop with the support of: Consortium for Uganda University Libraries (CUUL), The Right to Research Coalition, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), Makerere University, International Health Sciences University (IHSU), Pan African Medical Journal (PAMJ) and the Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD). All these organizations are based or have offices in Kampala. The event culminated in a meeting with the Science and Technology Committee of Parliament of Uganda in order to receive the support of the Ugandan Members of Parliament and to make a concrete change for Open Access in the country.Pan African Medical Journal 2015; 21