Background The 1984 Mexico City Policy is a U.S. federal policy that has prohibited foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. international family planning assistance from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide, counsel on, or refer for abortion services as a method of family planning, or advocate for the liberalization of abortion laws- except in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. The policy became known as the global gag rule (GGR) due to its silencing effect on abortion advocacy. Historically, it has only been attached to family planning funding, until 2017 when a presidential memorandum expanded the policy to nearly all US$8.8 billion in global health foreign assistance. In light of the aforementioned expansion, this scoping review aimed to describe and map the impacts of the GGR on global health, which in turn would identify research and policy gaps. This is the first time that all of the existing literature on the policy’s impact has been synthesized into one article and comprehensively reviewed. Methods The review utilized Arksey and Malley’s five-stage methodological framework to conduct a scoping review. Fourteen peer-reviewed databases and 25 grey literature sources were searched for publications between January 1984 and October 2017. Organizations and individuals working on GGR research and impact were also contacted to access their works from the same time period. These publications reported on impacts of the global gag rule on 14 domains in global health. Results The searches yielded 1355 articles, of which 43 were included. Overall, 80% of the identified sources were qualitative. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and chilling effect of the policy underpinned the GGR’s impacts. The frequently reported impacts on family planning delivery systems (34 articles) and the loss of U.S. funding (21 articles) were often related. Sources reported on the impact of the GGR on HIV and AIDS programs, advocacy and coalition spaces, and maternal and child health. Only three studies (6.9%) quantified associations between the GGR and abortion rates, concluding that the policy does not decrease rates of abortion. Discussion The GGR’s development and implementation was consistently associated with poor impacts on health systems’ function and outcomes. More peer-reviewed and quantitative research measuring and monitoring the policy’s impact on health outcomes are needed. More research and policy analysis exploring the GGR’s development and its implementation on the ground will improve knowledge on GGR consequences, and potentially shape its reform.
BackgroundBehaviour-change interventions have been consistently considered an essential part of comprehensive HIV, STI and unintended pregnancy prevention. In 2015, the World Health Organization reviewed and assessed existing evidence on brief behavioural interventions, leading to the publication of Brief sexuality-related communication: recommendations for a public health approach. This guideline recommends the use of brief behaviour intervention and communication programmes to promote sexual health and to prevent HIV, STIs, and unintended pregnancies in primary health services, particularly sexual and reproductive health services.ObjectiveWith the purpose of informing the development of a brief behaviour intervention in sexual and reproductive health, we conducted a systematic review of brief intervention to prevent HIV, STI and unintended pregnancies, to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in health care settings.MethodsParticipants from all ages and genders were included. Brief interventions delivered in ≤ 60 minutes were included. Data was extracted, and interventions were coded following the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy (BCTTv1) guidelines.ResultsOf the 6.687 articles identified, 355 were reviewed and 37 studies were included. In effective interventions, we identified 48 behaviour change techniques (BCTs). A core set of 8 frequently used behaviour change techniques was identified: “Problem solving”, “Feedback on behaviour”, “Social support (unspecified)”, “Instructions on how to perform the behaviour”, “Information about health consequences”, “Information about social and environmental consequences”, “Demonstration of the behaviour” and “Credible source”.ConclusionsThe technical content of brief behaviour interventions was identified in a reliable and standardized way providing preliminary indications on potentially effective techniques to achieve behaviour change.
During his first week in office, US President Donald J Trump issued a presidential memorandum to reinstate and broaden the reach of the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy (which was in place from 1985–1993, 1999–2000 and 2001–2009) barred foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that received US government family planning (FP) assistance from using US funds or their own funds for performing, providing counselling, referring or advocating for safe abortions as a method of FP. The renamed policy, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), expands the Mexico City policy by applying it to most US global health assistance. Thus, foreign NGOs receiving US global health assistance of nearly any type must agree to the policy, regardless of whether they work in reproductive health. This article summarises academic and grey literature on the impact of previous iterations of the Mexico City policy, and initial research on impacts of the expanded policy. It builds on this analysis to propose a hypothesis regarding the potential impact of PLGHA on health systems. Because PLGHA applies to much more funding than it did in its previous iterations, and because health services have generally become more integrated in the past decade, we hypothesise that the health systems impacts of PLGHA could be significant. We present this hypothesis as a tool that may be useful to others’ and to our own research on the impact of PLGHA and similar exogenous overseas development assistance policy changes.
Background Throughout the last decade substantial research has been undertaken to develop evidence-based behaviour change interventions for sexual health promotion. Primary care could provide an opportunistic entry for brief sexual health communication.Objectives We conducted a systematic review to explore opportunistic sexual and reproductive health services for sexual health communication delivered at primary health care level. Search strategyWe searched for studies on PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, Jstor, Scopus/Science Direct, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, EBSCO, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and Web of Knowledge. Both published and unpublished articles were reviewed.Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included. Participants of all ages, from adolescence onwards were included. Brief (10-60 minutes) interventions including some aspect of communication on sexual health issues were included.Data collection and analysis Data were extracted by two reviewers independently using a standardised form. Interventions differed from each other, hence meta-analysis was not performed, and results are presented individually.Main results A total of 247 articles were selected for full-text evaluation, 31 of which were included. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/HIV were less often reported in the intervention group compared with the control group. Condom use was higher in most studies in the intervention group. Numbers of sexual partners and unprotected sexual intercourse were lower in the intervention groups.Conclusions There is evidence that brief counselling interventions have some effect in the reduction and prevention of STIs/HIV. Some questions could not be answered, such as the effect over time and in different settings and population groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.