Leaving No One Behind: Human Rights and Gender as Critical Frameworks for U=U

Experience has shown the need to explicitly address human rights and gender-related barriers in the rollout of HIV-related biomedical innovations, including "undetectable equals untransmittable" (U=U). This paper brings to light rights and gender considerations relevant to supporting U=U, recognizing a range of barriers that remain to be addressed for all people to benefit equally from U=U. We conducted a literature review to ascertain how human rights and gender were addressed in relevant publications, including peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2020, relevant nongovernmental and global organizations' publications, and abstracts presented at the 2019 International AIDS Conference, that explicitly addressed U=U or "treatment as prevention." Despite evidence to illustrate the importance of attention to human rights and gender within U=U policies and interventions, there remains a lack of explicit attention to human rights and gender considerations in research and programming, particularly with regard to the rights principles of participation and accountability. Explicitly engaging all of these dimensions is key to informing interventions and improving people's lives, health, and well-being.

Mind the Gap: Understanding Differences Between Sexual and Reproductive Health-Related Legal Frameworks on Paper and in Practice

Introduction

UNFPA recently developed a composite indicator to assess sexual and reproductive health (SRH)-related laws as part of the Sustainable Development Goals monitoring framework (Indicator 5.6.2). However, there is still little understanding of how best to ensure a supportive SRH-related legal framework can improve SRH outcomes. This research draws on country case studies (Colombia, Malawi, Uruguay, Zambia) to provide more generalizable lessons on the processes by which these laws are translated into practice and their impact on lived realities.

Methods

Peer-reviewed and gray literature on laws and policies related to maternity care, contraception, sexuality education, HIV and HPV was reviewed. Key informant interviews were carried out with 8–16 people in each country, including representatives of government, civil society and academia to understand factors affecting implementation of relevant laws and policies. Findings were thematically analyzed by country and contextualized within each country's score on Indicator 5.6.2 and relevant SRH outcome data.

Findings

Across these countries, some common organizational steps help move from laws on paper to impacting people's lives including budget allocation, development of technical guidance, health worker training, population awareness creation and demand generation. It is also important to address sociocultural challenges such as entrenched inequalities, conservative cultural and religious beliefs and the potential existence of customary law. Challenges can be encountered across all these steps and can vary based on the area of SRH: implementation of laws to reduce maternal mortality is generally less controversial than laws around abortion, often making the latter harder to implement. Local specificities in structures, systems and cultures bring opportunities and challenges, highlighting the need for tailored actions.

Discussion

A legal framework supportive to SRH is critical, particularly in the face of backlash against sexual and reproductive rights, but alone it is insufficient. Understanding that a generic pathway exists for moving laws into practice is a critical starting point for exploring the specificities of each national context as a way of identifying entry points for action. These findings can be used to inform advocacy and monitoring to help ensure that the potential benefits of supportive SRH-related laws can be realized in these four countries and around the world.

Law, human rights and gender in practice: an analysis of lessons from implementation of self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health

Self-care interventions for health are becoming increasingly available, and among the preferred options, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research assessed the extent of attention to laws and policies, human rights and gender in the implementation of self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health (SRH), to identify where additional efforts to ensure an enabling environment for their use and uptake will be useful. A literature review of relevant studies published between 2010 and 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Relevant data were systematically abstracted from 61 articles. In March–April 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants, selected for their experience implementing self-care interventions for SRH, and thematically analysed. Laws and policies, rights and gender are not being systematically addressed in the implementation of self-care interventions for SRH. Within countries, there is varied attention to the enabling environment including the acceptability of interventions, privacy, informed consent and gender concerns as they impact both access and use of specific self-care interventions, while other legal considerations appear to have been under-prioritised. Operational guidance is needed to develop and implement supportive laws and policies, as well as to ensure the incorporation of rights and gender concerns in implementing self-care interventions for SRH.

Integrating human rights into sexual and reproductive health research: moving beyond the rhetoric, what will it take to get us there?

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.

Inclusion of human rights in sexual and reproductive health programming: Facilitators and barriers to implementation

The need to prioritise those furthest behind is well understood in global health circles, and how human rights norms and standards can help often touted. As rights concerns are particularly recognised in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programming, as part of a larger exercise, a review was conducted to identify documented barriers and facilitators to implementation. Given the role global guidance plays in implementing rights-based approaches to SRH, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) guidelines, tools, recommendations and guidance that include the explicit mention of human rights principles served as the basis for this exercise. This was followed by an extensive review of the literature. Sources reviewed confirmed barriers include not only broad structural, policy and health systems barriers but financial, staffing and time constraints, as well as lack of understanding of concretely how to include human rights in these efforts. Facilitators include the existence of human rights champions, leadership, strong civil society participation, training, and funding made available specifically for implementation. Investment in indicators and documentation sensitive to human rights is warranted in sexual and reproductive health, as well as other health topics, to best serve populations who need them most.