A Systematic Review of Reporting Tools Applicable to Sexual and Reproductive Health Programmes: Step 1 in Developing Programme Reporting Standards

Risky sexual behavior and associated factors among secondary and above-education-level students in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Risky sexual behavior is defined as the behavior that increases the susceptibility of an individual to problems related to sexuality and reproductive health. The main aim of this study was to determine the pooled prevalence of risky sexual behavior and its associated factors in Ethiopia.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) rules were used. During the searching period, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CINAHL were used with search terms. The STATA form 14 program was utilized to perform the meta-analysis. I² statistics was used to test heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed using Begg's and Egger's tests. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented using forest plots.

Results

There were 24 studies, and 13,440 study participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of risky sexual behavior in Ethiopia was 40% (95% CI: 32%, 48%). The associated factors for risky sexual behavior were substance use [OR: 2.41 (95% CI: 1.49, 3.89)], watching pornography [OR: 2.59 (95% CI: 1.01, 6.69)], and night club visit, [OR: 2.53 (95% CI: 1.64, 3.90)].

Conclusion

Risky sexual behavior among secondary school and above-education-level Ethiopian students was high.

Evaluating implementation of the World Health Organization's Strategic Approach to strengthening sexual and reproductive health policies and programs to address unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion

Background

We conducted a process evaluation to assess how the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategic Approach to strengthening sexual and reproductive health policies and programs (“the SA”) was used in 15 countries that requested WHO’s technical support in addressing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion. The SA is a three-stage planning, policy, and program implementation process. We used the social ecological model (SEM) to analyze the contextual factors that influenced SA implementation.

Methods

We used a two-phased sequential approach to data collection and analysis. In Phase A, we conducted a document and literature review and synthesized data thematically. In Phase B, we conducted interviews with stakeholders who used the SA in the countries of interest. We used a qualitative method triangulation technique to analyze and combine data from both phases to understand how the SA was implemented in each country.

Results

Data from 145 documents and 19 interviews described the SA process and activities in each country. All 15 countries completed Stage 1 activities. The activities of Stage 1 determined activities in subsequent stages and varied across countries. Following Stage 1, some countries focused on reforming policies to improve access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services whereas others focused on improving provider-level capacity to enhance SRH service quality and improving community-level SRH education. We identified factors across SEM levels that affected SA implementation, including individual- and community-level perceptions of using the SA and the recommendations that emerged from its use, organizational capacity to conduct SA activities, and how well these activities aligned with the existing political climate. Stakeholders perceived SA implementation to be country-driven and systematic in bringing attention to important SRH issues in their countries.

Conclusion

We identified key success factors for influencing the individual, organization, and system change required for implementing the SA. These include sustaining stakeholder engagement for all SA stages, monitoring and reporting on activities, and leveraging activities and outputs from each SA stage to obtain technical and financial support for subsequent stages. Results may be used to optimize ongoing implementation efforts to improve access to and the quality of SRH services.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-017-0405-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes

BACKGROUND

Information about design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation is central to understand the impact of programmes within the field of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH). Existing reporting guidelines do not orient on reporting of contextual and implementation issues in sufficient detail. We therefore developed Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) to be used by SRMNCAH programme implementers and researchers.

METHODS

Building on the first step of the PRS development (a systematic review to identify reporting items), we conducted a three-round online Delphi consensus survey with experts. Consensus was defined a-priori as 80% agreement of items as essential. This was followed by a technical consultation with a group of experts to refine the items, definitions and their structuring. The revised PRS was piloted to assess its relevance to current SRMNCAH programme reports and identify key issues regarding the use of the PRS.

RESULTS

Of the 81 participants invited to the Delphi survey, 20 responded to all three rounds. In the final round, 27 items received consensus as essential; three items were ranked as "borderline" essential; 20 items as supplementary. The items were subsequently revised, followed by a technical consultation with 29 experts to further review and refine the PRS. The feedback resulted in substantial changes to the structure and content of the PRS into 24 items across five domains: Programme overview; Programme components and implementation; Monitoring of Implementation; Evaluation and Results; and Synthesis. This version was used in a piloting exercise, where questions regarding how much information to report and how to comment on the quality of the information reported were addressed. All items were kept in the PRS following the pilot although minor changes were made to the flow and description of items.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRS 1.0 is the result of a structured, collaborative process, including methods to incorporate input from SRMNCAH stakeholders. The World Health Organization will develop a document that explains the items in greater detail, and will also apply the PRS to on-going initiatives. We welcome continuous input from the field, while it is being used, to improve its relevance and usefulness.

Implementation of effective practices in health facilities: a systematic review of cluster randomised trials

Background

The capacity for health systems to support the translation of research in to clinical practice may be limited. The cluster randomised controlled trial (cluster RCT) design is often employed in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation of evidence-based practices. We aimed to systematically review available evidence to identify and evaluate the components in the implementation process at the facility level using cluster RCT designs.

Methods

All cluster RCTs where the healthcare facility was the unit of randomisation, published or written from 1990 to 2014, were assessed. Included studies were analysed for the components of implementation interventions employed in each. Through iterative mapping and analysis, we synthesised a master list of components used and summarised the effects of different combinations of interventions on practices.

Results

Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and covered the specialty groups of obstetrics and gynaecology (n=9), paediatrics and neonatology (n=4), intensive care (n=4), internal medicine (n=20), and anaesthetics and surgery (n=3). Six studies included interventions that were delivered across specialties. Nine components of multifaceted implementation interventions were identified: leadership, barrier identification, tailoring to the context, patient involvement, communication, education, supportive supervision, provision of resources, and audit and feedback. The four main components that were most commonly used were education (n=42, 91%), audit and feedback (n=26, 57%), provision of resources (n=23, 50%) and leadership (n=21, 46%).

Conclusions

Future implementation research should focus on better reporting of multifaceted approaches, incorporating sets of components that facilitate the translation of research into practice, and should employ rigorous monitoring and evaluation.