Search

Recent debates on decolonizing global health have spurred interest in addressing the power asymmetries and knowledge hierarchies that sustain colonial ideas and relationships in global health research. This paper applies three intersecting dimensions of colonialism (colonialism within global health; colonisation of global health; and colonialism through global health) to develop a broader and more structural understanding of the policies and actions needed to decolonise global health research. It argues that existing guidelines and checklists designed to make global health research more equitable do not adequately address the underlying power asymmetries and biases that prevail across the global health research ecosystem. Beyond encouraging fairer partnerships within individual research projects, this paper calls for more emphasis on shifting the balance of decision-making power, redistributing resources, and holding research funders and other power-holders accountable to the places and peoples involved in and impacted by global health research.

The integration of human rights principles in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research is often recognised to be of value. Good examples abound but lack of clarity persists as to what defines rights-inclusive SRH research. To help move the field forward, this article seeks to explore how key stakeholders responsible for funding and supporting rights in SRH research understand the strengths and weaknesses of what is being done and where, and begins to catalogue potential tools and actions for the future. Interviews with a range of key stakeholders including international civil servants, donors and researchers committed to and supportive of integrating rights into SRH research were conducted and analysed. Interviews confirmed important differences in what is understood to be SRH rights-oriented research and what it can accomplish. General barriers include lack of understanding about the importance of rights; lack of clarity as to the best approach to integration; fear of adding more work with little added benefit; as well as the lack of methodological guidance or published research methodologies that integrate rights. Suggestions include the development of a comprehensive checklist for each phase of research from developing a research statement through ultimately to publication; development of training modules and workshops; inclusion of rights in curricula; changes in journal requirements; and agreement among key funding sources to mandate the integration of rights principles in research proposals they receive. As a next step, cataloguing issues and concerns at local levels can help move the integration of human rights in SRH research from rhetoric to reality.

Abstract This paper addresses a critical concern in realizing sexual and reproductive health and rights through policies and programs – the relationship between power and accountability. We examine accountability strategies for sexual and reproductive health and rights through the lens of power so that we might better understand and assess their actual working. Power often derives from deep structural inequalities, but also seeps into norms and beliefs, into what we ‘know’ as truth, and what we believe about the world and about ourselves within it. Power legitimizes hierarchy and authority, and manufactures consent. Its capillary action causes it to spread into every corner and social extremity, but also sets up the possibility of challenge and contestation. Using illustrative examples, we show that in some contexts accountability strategies may confront and transform adverse power relationships. In other contexts, power relations may be more resistant to change, giving rise to contestation, accommodation, negotiation or even subversion of the goals of accountability strategies. This raises an important question about measurement. How is one to assess the achievements of accountability strategies, given the shifting sands on which they are implemented? We argue that power-focused realist evaluations are needed that address four sets of questions about: i) the dimensions and sources of power that an accountability strategy confronts; ii) how power is built into the artefacts of the strategy – its objectives, rules, procedures, financing methods inter alia; iii) what incentives, disincentives and norms for behavior are set up by the interplay of the above; and iv) their consequences for the outcomes of the accountability strategy. We illustrate this approach through examples of performance, social and legal accountability strategies.

A growing body of evidence reveals that the mistreatment of pregnant women during facility-based childbirth is occurring across the globe. As human rights bodies have increasingly recognized, numerous human rights are implicated in the context of mistreatment of women in childbirth, including the rights to be free from torture and other ill-treatment, privacy, health, non-discrimination, and equality. This paper builds on a previous paper published in this journal by Rajat Khosla, Christina Zampas, and others, and the new body of evidence describing the types of mistreatment that occur during childbirth, to unpack the drivers of the mistreatment of women during childbirth and how they are understood and addressed within human rights. Tracing recent developments, it examines how the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have addressed this issue. Understanding the drivers and human rights dimensions of the mistreatment of women during childbirth can contribute to accelerating progress toward universal health coverage, including access to reproductive health services, as mistreatment is a key barrier to women’s access to such services. The article concludes by offering guidance to states on a human rights-based approach to addressing mistreatment against women during facility-based childbirth.

Abstract Background Many 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). Objectives This 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? Methods We 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. Results A 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. Conclusion In 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.

Background This paper is a scoping review of the impact of legal accountability efforts for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), exploring the links between legal accountability strategies and changes in the desired SRHR outcomes.Methods We defined legal accountability as use of the judicial system following state failure to respect, protect or fulfil SRHR as enshrined in national law, as well as individuals’ or the state’s use of criminal law mechanisms to prevent unwanted behaviour and to provide remedy. We undertook a keyword search in PubMed, Scopus and LexisNexis and then consulted a group of experts to provide guidance regarding further peer-reviewed and grey literature, yielding a total of 191 articles.Results The majority of the empirical, peer-reviewed articles identified were regarding abortion law and abortion care availability, followed by violence against women. Most of these articles explore the gaps between law and practice. We identified seven key factors that shape the efficacy of legal accountability efforts, including the ways a law or court decision is formulated, access to courts, the (dis)advantages of criminal law in the given context, cultural norms, politics, state capacity and resources and the potential for further litigation. Many articles explained that use of the judiciary may be necessary to effect change and that the act of claiming rights can empower, but that legal avenues for change can be imperfect tools for justice.Conclusions Legal accountability can be effective as part of a broader, long-term strategy, with due attention to context.

Global strategies and commitments for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) underscore the need to strengthen rights-based accountability processes. Yet there are gaps between these ambitious SRHR rights frameworks and the constrained socio-political lived realities within which these frameworks are implemented. This paper addresses these gaps by reviewing the evidence on the dynamics and concerns related to operationalising accountability in the context of SRHR. It is based on a secondary analysis of a systematic review that examined the published evidence on SRHR and accountability and also draws on the broader literature on accountability for health. Key themes include the political and ideological context, enhancing community voice and health system responsiveness, and recognising the complexity of health systems. While there is a range of accountability relationships that can be leveraged in the health system, the characteristics specific to SRHR need to be considered as they colour the capabilities and conditions in which accountability efforts occur.

Background Global health organisations advocate gender-transformative programming (which challenges gender inequalities) with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for all. We systematically review evidence for this approach.Methods We previously reported an evidence-and-gap map (http://srhr.org/masculinities/wbincome/) and systematic review of reviews of experimental intervention studies engaging men/boys in SRHR, identified through a Campbell Collaboration published protocol (https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.203) without language restrictions between January 2007 and July 2018. Records for the current review of intervention studies were retrieved from those systematic reviews containing one or more gender-transformative intervention studies engaging men/boys. Data were extracted for intervention studies relating to each of the World Health Organization (WHO) SRHR outcomes. Promising programming characteristics, as well as underused strategies, were analysed with reference to the WHO definition of gender-transformative programming and an established behaviour change model, the COM-B model. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, RoB V.2.0 and Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions.Findings From 509 eligible records, we synthesised 68 studies comprising 36 randomised controlled trials, n=56 417 participants, and 32 quasi-experimental studies, n=25 554 participants. Promising programming characteristics include: multicomponent activities of education, persuasion, modelling and enablement; multilevel programming that mobilises wider communities; targeting both men and women; and programmes of longer duration than three months. Six of the seven interventions evaluated more than once show efficacy. However, we identified a significant risk of bias in the overall available evidence. Important gaps in evidence relate to safe abortion and SRHR during disease outbreaks.Conclusion It is widely acknowledged by global organisations that the question is no longer whether to include boys and men in SRHR but how to do so in ways that promote gender equality and health for all and are scientifically rigorous. This paper provides an evidence base to take this agenda for programming and research forward.

Introduction Persons with disabilities have the same sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as non-disabled persons. Yet they face numerous barriers in their access to sexual and reproductive health services and their rights are often not met. Evidence on SRHR for persons with disabilities is sparse, particularly evaluations of interventions demonstrating ‘what works.’ This systematic review assessed interventions to promote SRHR for persons with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries.Methods We searched for qualitative, quantitative or mixed method observational studies representing primary research, published between 2010 and 2019, using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Global Health and CINAHL Plus. Search strings were compiled for different elements of SRHR and for all forms of disability. 24,919 records were screened, leading to over 380 relevant papers, most of which were descriptive, focussing on needs and barriers to SRHR needs being fulfilled. Of the 33 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 18 were included in the synthesis. All included studies were assessed for bias and quality of evidence, using STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and RATS (relevance, appropriateness, transparency andsoundness) tools. Among the 16 interventions (from 18 articles), 25% had low risk of bias, 31% had moderate risk of bias and 44% had high risk of bias. Data analysis used narrative synthesis; a method suited for systematic reviews with heterogeneous studies. We used Levesque healthcare access model to analyse the focus of interventions.Results 11 interventions were from upper middle-income settings; two from lower-income settings; only one operated in rural areas. Interventions addressed intellectual impairment (6), visual impairment (6), hearing impairment (4), mental health conditions (2) and physical impairments (2). Most interventions (15/16) focus on information provision and awareness raising. We could not identify any intervention promoting access to maternal health, family planning and contraception, or safe abortion for people with disabilities.Conclusion This systematic review has highlighted stark gaps in evidence. More rigorous evaluations are needed.

Abstract In April 2016, the Population Council, in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception, convened a regional meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, geared toward supporting countries in East and Southern Africa in meeting their obligations under the Maputo Protocol. These obligations include expanding access to women’s reproductive health services – especially women survivors of sexual violence. Government and civil society representatives from six countries participated: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Zambia. Countries were selected based on to their being priority settings for the projects that sponsored the meeting, coupled with the fact that they were each far enough along in addressing post-rape care to be able to develop concrete policy, programming, and/or legal action plans by the end of the meeting. The meeting was the first activity in a joint project of technical assistance by the conveners, aimed at strengthening access to comprehensive post-rape care for survivors of sexual violence. It aimed to sensitize Member States to their obligations under the Maputo Protocol to expand women’s access to emergency contraception (EC) and safe abortion services, and to inspire them to do so by providing information, research evidence, and a platform for discussion. The meeting deliberations fostered a better understanding of opportunities to broaden access to EC and safe abortion for survivors in the region. Discussions on EC in this regard centered on strengthening EC delivery in the clinical context, decentralizing EC services, increasing community awareness, and overcoming policy barriers. Safe abortion discussions focused primarily on legislation, policy, and integrating these services into existing services for sexual violence survivors. Country-specific action plans were developed to address gaps and weaknesses. The regional technical meeting concluded with a discussion of practical steps that participants could take to facilitate legal, policy, and program reform with respect to pregnancy prevention and safe abortion in their respective countries. The steps revolved around three mainly areas, namely: establishing an evidence base to inform action; creating forums for discussing the issues; and drafting action points to carry the momentum from the meeting forward. This paper details the proceedings from this regional technical meeting – proceedings that are of interest to the field of sexual and gender-based violence (and reproductive health, more broadly) as challenges faced by countries in implementing the Maputo Protocol are outlined, and evidence-informed and practice-based strategies for addressing these challenges are provided.

Abstract Two hundred million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM), and another 15 million girls are at risk of experiencing it by 2020 in high prevalence countries (UNICEF, 2016. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a global concern. 2016). Despite decades of concerted efforts to eradicate or abandon the practice, and the increased need for clear guidance on the treatment and care of women who have undergone FGM, present efforts have not yet been able to effectively curb the number of women and girls subjected to this practice (UNICEF. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. 2013), nor are they sufficient to respond to health needs of millions of women and girls living with FGM. International efforts to address FGM have thus far focused primarily on preventing the practice, with less attention to treating associated health complications, caring for survivors, and engaging health care providers as key stakeholders. Recognizing this imperative, WHO developed guidelines on management of health complications of FGM. In this paper, based on foundational research for the development of WHO’s guidelines, we situate the practice of FGM as a rights violation in the context of international and national policy and efforts, and explore the role of health providers in upholding health-related human rights of women at girls who are survivors, or who are at risk. Findings are based on a literature review of relevant international human rights treaties and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196788.].

BACKGROUND:Accountability for ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights is increasingly receiving global attention. Less attention has been paid to accountability mechanisms for sexual and reproductive health and rights at national and sub-national level, the focus of this systematic review. METHODS:We searched for peer-reviewed literature using accountability, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and accountability instrument search terms across three electronic databases, covering public health, social sciences and legal studies. The search yielded 1906 articles, 40 of which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (articles on low and middle-income countries in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese published from 1994 and October 2016) defined by a peer reviewed protocol. RESULTS:Studies were analyzed thematically and through frequencies where appropriate. They were drawn from 41 low- and middle-income countries, with just over half of the publications from the public health literature, 13 from legal studies and the remaining six from social science literature. Accountability was discussed in five health areas: maternal, neonatal and child health services, HIV services, gender-based violence, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender access and access to reproductive health care in general. We identified three main groupings of accountability strategies: performance, social and legal accountability. CONCLUSION:The review identified an increasing trend in the publication of accountability initiatives in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). The review points towards a complex 'accountability ecosystem' with multiple actors with a range of roles, responsibilities and interactions across levels from the transnational to the local. These accountability strategies are not mutually exclusive, but they do change the terms of engagement between the actors involved. The publications provide little insight on the connections between these accountability strategies and on the contextual conditions for the successful implementation of the accountability interventions. Obtaining a more nuanced understanding of various underpinnings of a successful approach to accountability at national and sub national levels is essential.

BACKGROUND:An estimated 32 million women and girls of reproductive age living in emergency situations, all of whom require sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and services. This systematic review assessed the effect of SRH interventions, including the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) on a range of health outcomes from the onset of emergencies. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We searched EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases from January 1, 1980 to April 10, 2017. This review was registered with the PROSPERO database with identifier number CRD42017082102. We found 29 studies meet the inclusion criteria. We found high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of specific SRH interventions, such as home visits and peer-led educational and counselling, training of lower-level health care providers, community health workers (CHWs) to promote SRH services, a three-tiered network of health workers providing reproductive and maternal health services, integration of HIV and SRH services, and men's discussion groups for reducing intimate partner violence. We found moderate quality evidence to support transport-based referral systems, community-based SRH education, CHW delivery of injectable contraceptives, wider literacy programmes, and birth preparedness interventions. No studies reported interventions related to fistulae, and only one study focused on abortion services. CONCLUSIONS:Despite increased attention to SRH in humanitarian crises, the sector has made little progress in advancing the evidence base for the effectiveness of SRH interventions, including the MISP, in crisis settings. A greater quantity and quality of more timely research is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of delivering SRH interventions in a variety of humanitarian crises.

The last few years have seen a rise in the number of global and national initiatives that seek to incorporate human rights into public health practice. Nonetheless, a lack of clarity persists regarding the most appropriate indicators to monitor rights concerns in these efforts. The objective of this work was to develop a systematic methodology for use in determining the extent to which indicators commonly used in public health capture human rights concerns, using contraceptive services and programmes as a case study.The approach used to identify, evaluate, select and review indicators for their human rights sensitivity built on processes undertaken in previous work led by the World Health Organization (WHO). With advice from an expert advisory group, an analytic framework was developed to identify and evaluate quantitative, qualitative, and policy indicators in relation to contraception for their sensitivity to human rights. To test the framework's validity, indicators were reviewed to determine their feasibility to provide human rights analysis with attention to specific rights principles and standards.This exercise resulted in the identification of indicators that could be used to monitor human rights concerns as well as key gaps where additional indicators are required. While indicators generally used to monitor contraception programmes have some degree of sensitivity to human rights, breadth and depth are lacking.The proposed methodology can be useful to practitioners, researchers, and policy makers working in any area of health who are interested in monitoring and evaluating attention to human rights in commonly used health indicators.

The importance of promoting gender equality and human rights in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programmes and policies has been affirmed in numerous international and regional agreements, most recently the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Given the critical role of research to determine what works, we aimed to identify research gaps as part of a broader priority setting exercise on integrating gender equality and human rights approaches in SRH programmes and policies. A systematic literature review of reviews was conducted to examine the question: what do we know about how research in the context of SRH programmes and policies has addressed gender equality and human rights and what are the current gaps in research. We searched three databases for reviews that addressed the research question, were published between 1994-2014, and met methodological standards for systematic reviews, qualitative meta-syntheses and other reviews of relevance to the research question. Additional grey literature was identified based on expert input. Articles were appraised by the primary author and examined by an expert panel. An abstraction and thematic analysis process was used to synthesize findings. Of the 3,073 abstracts identified, 56 articles were reviewed in full and 23 were included along with 10 from the grey literature. The majority focused on interventions addressing gender inequalities; very few reviews explicitly included human rights based interventions. Across both topics, weak study designs and use of intermediate outcome measures limited evidence quality. Further, there was limited evidence on interventions that addressed marginalized groups. Better quality studies, longer-term indicators, and measurement of unintended consequences are needed to better understand the impact of these types of interventions on SRH outcomes. Further efforts are needed to cover research on gender equality and human rights issues as they pertain to a broader set of SRH topics and populations.

BACKGROUND:Incorrect knowledge of laws may affect how women enter the health system or seek services, and it likely contributes to the disconnect between official laws and practical applications of the laws that influence women's access to safe, legal abortion services. OBJECTIVE:To provide a synthesis of evidence of women's awareness and knowledge of the legal status of abortion in their country, and the accuracy of women's knowledge on specific legal grounds and restrictions outlined in a country's abortion law. METHODS:A systematic search was carried for articles published between 1980-2015. Quantitative, mixed-method data collection, and objectives related to women's awareness or knowledge of the abortion law was included. Full texts were assessed, and data extraction done by a single reviewer. Final inclusion for analysis was assessed by two reviewers. The results were synthesised into tables, using narrative synthesis. RESULTS:Of the original 3,126 articles, and 16 hand searched citations, 24 studies were included for analysis. Women's correct general awareness and knowledge of the legal status was less than 50% in nine studies. In six studies, knowledge of legalization/liberalisation ranged between 32.3%-68.2%. Correct knowledge of abortion on the grounds of rape ranged from 12.8%-98%, while in the case of incest, ranged from 9.8%-64.5%. Abortion on the grounds of fetal impairment and gestational limits, varied widely from 7%-94% and 0%-89.5% respectively. CONCLUSION:This systematic review synthesizes literature on women's awareness and knowledge of the abortion law in their own context. The findings show that correct general awareness and knowledge of the abortion law and legal grounds and restrictions amongst women was limited, even in countries where the laws were liberal. Thus, interventions to disseminate accurate information on the legal context are necessary.

After publication of the original article [1], it was noticed one of the author’s Given Names was misspelled. Sarah Rich’s name was misspelled as Sara Rich. The author’s name is correctly presented in the author list of this correction.

BackgroundDespite growing recognition of neglectful, abusive, and disrespectful treatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, there is no consensus at a global level on how these occurrences are defined and measured. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities to inform the development of an evidence-based typology of the phenomenon.Methods and findingsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on the mistreatment of women during childbirth across all geographical and income-level settings. We used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesize the qualitative evidence and assessed the confidence in the qualitative review findings using the CERQual approach. In total, 65 studies were included from 34 countries. Qualitative findings were organized under seven domains: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) verbal abuse, (4) stigma and discrimination, (5) failure to meet professional standards of care, (6) poor rapport between women and providers, and (7) health system conditions and constraints. Due to high heterogeneity of the quantitative data, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; instead, we present descriptions of study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. Additional themes identified in the quantitative studies are integrated into the typology.ConclusionsThis systematic review presents a comprehensive, evidence-based typology of the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, and demonstrates that mistreatment can occur at the level of interaction between the woman and provider, as well as through systemic failures at the health facility and health system levels. We propose this typology be adopted to describe the phenomenon and be used to develop measurement tools and inform future research, programs, and interventions.

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. The "Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines" include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing. Two years after the release of the Guidelines, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.