RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated social restrictions may have disrupted the provision of essential services, including family planning (FP) and contraceptive services. This protocol is adapted from a generic study protocol titled "Health systems analysis and evaluations of the barriers to availability and readiness of sexual and reproductive health services in COVID-19 affected areas," conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) Department of Reproductive Health and Research. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the availability and use of FP and contraceptive services in primary health facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic; assess the risk perceptions of COVID-19 stigma, barriers to access, and quality of services from clients' and providers' perspectives in the COVID-19-affected areas; and assess the postpandemic recovery of the facilities in the provision of FP and contraceptive services. METHODS: In-depth interviews will be conducted with clients-women in the reproductive age group and their male partners who visit the selected health facilities for FP and contraceptive services-and health providers (the most knowledgeable person on FP and contraceptive service provision) at the selected health facilities. Focus group discussions will be conducted with clients at the selected health facilities and in the community. The in-depth interviews and focus group discussions will help to understand clients' and health service providers' perspectives of FP and contraceptive service availability and readiness in COVID-19-affected areas. A cross-sectional health facility assessment will be conducted in all the selected health facilities to determine the health facility infrastructure's ability and readiness to provide FP and contraceptive services and to capture the trends in FP and contraceptive services available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific approval for this study is obtained from the WHO Research Project Review Panel, and the WHO Ethics Review Committee has given ethical approval in the 3 countries. RESULTS: Using a standardized research protocol will ensure that the results from this study can be compared across regions and countries. The study was funded in March 2021. It received ethics approval from the WHO Ethics Review Committee in February 2022. We completed data collection in September 2022. We plan to complete the data analysis by March 2023. We plan to publish the study results by Summer 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will provide a better understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on FP and contraceptive services at the facility level, which will help policy makers and health managers develop and strengthen FP policies and services in health facilities to be more responsive to community needs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43329.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A recent editorial urged those working in global mental health to "change the conversation" on coronavirus disease (Covid-19) by putting more focus on the needs of people with severe mental health conditions. UPSIDES (Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering mental health Services) is a six-country consortium carrying out implementation research on peer support for people with severe mental health conditions in high- (Germany, Israel), lower middle- (India) and low-income (Tanzania, Uganda) settings. This commentary briefly outlines some of the key challenges faced by UPSIDES sites in low- and middle-income countries as a result of Covid-19, sharing early lessons that may also apply to other services seeking to address the needs of people with severe mental health conditions in similar contexts. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED: The key take-away from experiences in India, Tanzania and Uganda is that inequalities in terms of access to mobile technologies, as well as to secure employment and benefits, put peer support workers in particularly vulnerable situations precisely when they and their peers are also at their most isolated. Establishing more resilient peer support services requires attention to the already precarious situation of people with severe mental health conditions in low-resource settings, even before a crisis like Covid-19 occurs. While it is essential to maintain contact with peer support workers and peers to whatever extent is possible remotely, alternatives to face-to-face delivery of psychosocial interventions are not always straightforward to implement and can make it more difficult to observe individuals' reactions, talk about emotional issues and offer appropriate support. CONCLUSIONS: In environments where mental health care was already heavily medicalized and mostly limited to medications issued by psychiatric institutions, Covid-19 threatens burgeoning efforts to pursue a more holistic and person-centered model of care for people with severe mental health conditions. As countries emerge from lockdown, those working in global mental health will need to redouble their efforts not only to make up for lost time and help individuals cope with the added stressors of Covid-19 in their communities, but also to regain lost ground in mental health care reform and in broader conversations about mental health in low-resource settings.