Social accountability as a strategy to promote sexual and reproductive health entitlements for stigmatized issues and populations.

Social accountability is often put forward as a strategy to promote health rights, but we lack a programmatic evidence base on if, when, and how social accountability strategies can be used to promote access to quality Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) care for stigmatized populations and/or stigmatized issues. In this Commentary, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of social accountability strategies in promoting the availability of a full range of SRH services for excluded and historically oppressed populations. We accomplish this by describing four programs that sought to promote access to quality SRH care for stigmatized populations and/or stigmatized services. Program implementers faced similar challenges, including stigma and harmful gender norms among providers and communities, and lack of clear guidance, authority, and knowledge of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) entitlements at local level. To overcome these challenges, the programs employed several strategies, including linking their strategies to legal accountability, budgetary expenditures, or other institutionalized processes; taking steps to ensure inclusion, including through consultation with excluded or stigmatized groups throughout the program design and implementation process; specific outreach and support to integrating marginalized groups into program activities; and the creation of separate spaces to ensure confidentiality and safety. The program experiences described here suggest some general principles for ensuring that social accountability efforts are inclusive both in terms of populations and issues addressed. Further empirical research can test and further flesh out these principles, and deepen our understanding of context.

Marital status and abortion among young women in Rupandehi, Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Despite liberalization of the Nepal abortion law, young women continue to experience barriers to safe abortion services. We hypothesize that marital status may differentially impact such barriers, given the societal context of Nepal. METHODS: We evaluated differences in reproductive knowledge and attitudes by marital status with a probability-based, cross-sectional survey of young women in Rupandehi district, Nepal. Participants (N = 600) were surveyed in 2012 on demographics, romantic experiences, media habits, reproductive information, and abortion knowledge and attitudes. We used logistic regression to assess differences by marital status, controlling for age. RESULTS: Participants, who comprised never-married (54%) and ever-married women (45%), reported good access to basic reproductive health and abortion information. Social desirability bias might have prevented reporting of premarital romantic and sexual activity given that participants reported more premarital activities for their friends than for themselves. Only 45% knew that abortion was legal, and fewer ever-married women were aware of abortion legality. Never-married women expected more negative responses from having an abortion than ever-married women. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for providing sexual and reproductive health care information and services to young women regardless of marital status.