The health needs of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) have been neglected in tuberculosis (TB) care, control, and research. AYAs, who are distinct from younger children and older adults, undergo dynamic physical, psychological, emotional, cognitive, and social development. Five domains of adolescent well-being are crucial to a successful transition between childhood and adulthood: (1) Good health; (2) connectedness and contribution to society; (3) safety and a supportive environment; (4) learning, competence, education, skills, and employability; and (5) agency and resilience. This review summarizes the evidence of the impact of TB disease and treatment on these five domains of AYA well-being.

BackgroundWhile the distribution of mosquito bed nets is a widely adopted approach for malaria prevention, studies exploring how the usage of a net may be influenced by its source and other factors remain sparse.MethodsA standardized questionnaire and home-visit observations were used to collect data from 9 villages in Budondo sub-county, Uganda in 2016. Household- and individual-level data were collected, such as bed net ownership (at least one net versus none), acquirement source (free versus purchased), demographics, as well as knowledge of malaria and preventative measures. Net-level data, including alternative uses, and bed net quantity and integrity, were also collected. Mixed effects logistic regression models were performed to identify the key determinants of bed net use.ResultsOverall, the proportion of households with at least one bed net was 40%, while bed net availability was only reported among 27% of all household members. Awareness of the benefits of bed net use was statistically significantly associated with ownership of at least one net (OR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.11–2.68, p = 0.02). Among those who own net(s), the odds of a bed net being correctly used (i.e., to sleep under) after adjusting for potential confounders were significantly lower for nets that were obtained free compared to nets that were purchased by the owners themselves (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21–0.51, p < 0.01), resulting in an alternative use of the net. Other factors such as female gender, children ≤ 5 years old, and pregnancy status were also significantly associated with having a net to sleep under (all p < 0.01).ConclusionUnderstanding inter- and intra-household net-use factors will help malaria control programmes more effectively direct their efforts to increase public health impact. Future studies may additionally consider socioeconomic status and track the lifetime of the net.

No abstract

BackgroundSocial innovation in health is a community-engaged process that links social change and health improvement, drawing on the diverse strengths of local individuals and institutions. However, there are few studies that examine community engagement, financing and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to use a qualitative descriptive analysis to assess 40 social innovations in health identified through a global open call.MethodsThis qualitative analysis examined social innovation case studies from low- and middle-income countries identified by a global social innovation network. A crowdsourcing open call identified projects and key components of each social innovation were evaluated by an independent panel. We used a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention framework to measure community engagement as shared leadership, collaboration, involvement, consultation or informing. We used descriptive statistics to examine key aspects of community engagement, financing, health outcomes and non-health outcomes.ResultsData from 40 social innovations were examined. Social innovations were from Africa (21/40), Asia (11/40), and Latin America and the Caribbean (8/40). Community engagement was diverse and robust across the cases and 60% (24/40) had either shared leadership or collaboration. Financing for social innovation came from research grants (23), national or provincial government support (15), revenues from sales (13), donations (13) and local government support (10). Social innovations reported health and non-health outcomes.ConclusionOur data demonstrate social innovations had robust community engagement. Innovative financing mechanisms provide mechanisms for sustaining social innovations. Further research on health and non-health outcomes of social innovation is needed.

Background Social innovation in health provides innovative solutions to address healthcare delivery gaps and it relies on engaging community. However, little is known about factors that influence community engagement in health research. The study sought an in-depth understanding of elements of community engagement in social innovations identified by the global social innovation in health initiative network. Methods The study employed a sequential mixed methods study approach, which involved a series of semi-structured interviews with 27 social innovators followed by an online survey among social innovation researchers. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 11. Themes identified from the qualitative study informed the development of a survey instrument on community engagement. The survey data were analyzed using STATA version-14 and descriptive statistics were presented. Results Community engagement in social innovation was mostly utilized during during delivery of interventions (213; 79.2%), intervention identification and design (179; 66.5%), and problem identification (167; 62.1%). About half of the social innovations (135; 52.1%) had collaborate or shared leadership level of community engagement. We noted differential participation of community stakeholders at different stages of community engagement in social innovations. Social innovations built capacity of community stakeholders to offer health services to communities. Community engagement in social innovations resulted into intervention acceptance, and improved sustainability and community ownership of interventions. Conclusion The study shows moderate community engagement in social innovations in health. Creating strong governance structures as well as co-creating interventions with communities are vital towards achieving high community engagement in social innovation in health.

No abstract