Socio-sexual norms and young people's sexual health in urban Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan: A qualitative scoping review.

In South Asia, young people face myriad challenges and opportunities regarding their sexual lives relating to varied experiences of norms and restrictions; gender norms and socio-sexual taboos limit communication around sexual health which in turn can affect sexual health outcomes. In this article we focus on norms affecting young people's sexual health experiences in urban settings in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. We conducted a scoping review of peer reviewed empirical studies based on qualitative data pertaining to young people's experiences of sexuality and sexual health in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. We searched four electronic databases for articles published (2010-2022), using terms relating to sexual health, young people, and South Asia. Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria with sample size ranging from 9 to 180. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines for the design and analysis of this study. We synthesised the included articles using thematic analysis. The studies covered topics such as sexual health services and contraceptive use; sexuality education and communication; and gender and sexual violence. Recurring findings included: parental and societal expectations around premarital 'sexual purity' through abstinence; limited communication around sexuality between young people and parents/adults; gender norms limiting young women's sexual and reproductive decision making; and an absence of research on experiences of sexual and gender minorities. We identified common themes as well as prominent gaps which must be addressed if we are to capture diverse experiences and build a better evidence base to improve sexual health services for young people in the region. The body of research fails to include experiences of young people with diverse gender, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics.

Health risks at work mean risks at home: Spatial aspects of COVID-19 among migrant workers in precarious jobs in England.

During COVID-19 lockdowns in England, 'key workers' including factory workers, carers and cleaners had to continue to travel to workplaces. Those in key worker jobs were often from more marginalised communities, including migrant workers in precarious employment. Recognising space as materially and socially produced, this qualitative study explores migrant workers' experiences of navigating COVID-19 risks at work and its impacts on their home spaces. Migrant workers in precarious employment often described workplace COVID-19 protection measures as inadequate. They experienced work space COVID-19 risks as extending far beyond physical work boundaries. They developed their own protection measures to try to avoid infection and to keep the virus away from family members. Their protection measures included disinfecting uniforms, restricting leisure activities and physically separating themselves from their families. Inadequate workplace COVID-19 protection measures limited workers' ability to reduce risks. In future outbreaks, support for workers in precarious jobs should include free testing, paid sick leave and accommodation to allow for self-isolation to help reduce risks to workers' families. Work environments should not be viewed as discrete risk spaces when planning response measures; responses and risk reduction approaches must also take into account impacts on workers' lives beyond the workplace.

Understanding the lived experience of pregnancy and birth for survivors of rape and sexual assault.

BACKGROUND: One in five women in the UK are survivors of rape and sexual assault, and four in five women will give birth. This implies that a substantial number of women experience rape and sexual assault before pregnancy. We highlight and explore the voices and lived experiences of survivors during pregnancy and birth, to better understand the relationship between sexual violence, biomedicine, and pregnancy and to inform maternity care practice. METHODS: This qualitative research took an intersectional feminist approach. We conducted in-depth individual interviews in England with fourteen women who self-identified as survivors of rape or sexual assault, and who had experienced pregnancy and birth after the assault. We conducted open line-by-line coding of the interview transcripts, and identified key themes and sub-themes inductively. RESULTS: Three themes help summarise the narratives: control, safety and trauma. Maintaining a sense of control was important to survivors but they often reported objectification by healthcare staff and lack of consent or choice about healthcare decisions. Participants' preferences for giving birth were often motivated by their desire to feel in control and avoid triggering traumatic memories of the sexual assault. Survivors felt safer when they trusted staff. Many participants said it was important for staff to know they were survivors but none were asked about this. Pregnancy and birth experiences were triggering when they mirrored the assault, for instance if the woman was prevented from moving. Many of our participants reported having unmet mental health care needs before, during or after pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of sexual violence have specific maternity care needs. For our participants, these needs were often not met, leading to negative or traumatic experiences of pregnancy and birth. Systemic biases and poor birth experience jeopardise both psychological and physical safety. Funding for maternity and mental health services must be improved, so that they meet minimum staffing and care standards. Maternity services should urgently introduce trauma-informed models of care.

Community-led responses to COVID-19 within Gypsy and Traveller communities in England: A participatory qualitative research study.

Individuals were asked to play an active role in infection control in the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet while government messages emphasised taking responsibility for the public good (e.g. to protect the National Health Service), they appeared to overlook social, economic and political factors affecting the ways that people were able to respond. We co-produced participatory qualitative research with members of Gypsy and Traveller communities in England between October 2021 and February 2022 to explore how they had responded to COVID-19, its containment (test, trace, isolate) and the contextual factors affecting COVID-19 risks and responses within the communities. Gypsies and Travellers reported experiencing poor treatment from health services, police harassment, surveillance, and constrained living conditions. For these communities, claiming the right to health in an emergency required them to rely on community networks and resources. They organised collective actions to contain COVID-19 in the face of this ongoing marginalisation, such as using free government COVID-19 tests to support self-designed protective measures including community-facilitated testing and community-led contact tracing. This helped keep families and others safe while minimising engagement with formal institutions. In future emergencies, communities must be given better material, political and technical support to help them to design and implement effective community-led solutions, particularly where government institutions are untrusted or untrustworthy.

COVID-19 vaccination decisions among Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities: A qualitative study moving beyond "vaccine hesitancy".

BACKGROUND: Many people refuse vaccination and it is important to understand why. Here we explore the experiences of individuals from Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller groups in England to understand how and why they decided to take up or to avoid COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS: We used a participatory, qualitative design, including wide consultations, in-depth interviews with 45 individuals from Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller, communities (32 female, 13 male), dialogue sessions, and observations, in five locations across England between October 2021 and February 2022. FINDINGS: Vaccination decisions overall were affected by distrust of health services and government, which stemmed from prior discrimination and barriers to healthcare which persisted or worsened during the pandemic. We found the situation was not adequately characterised by the standard concept of "vaccine hesitancy". Most participants had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, usually motivated by concerns for their own and others' health. However, many participants felt coerced into vaccination by medical professionals, employers, and government messaging. Some worried about vaccine safety, for example possible impacts on fertility. Their concerns were inadequately addressed or even dismissed by healthcare staff. INTERPRETATION: A standard "vaccine hesitancy" model is of limited use in understanding vaccine uptake in these populations, where authorities and health services have been experienced as untrustworthy in the past (with little improvement during the pandemic). Providing more information may improve vaccine uptake somewhat; however, improved trustworthiness of health services for GRT communities is essential to increase vaccine coverage. FUNDING: This paper reports on independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, and other Government Departments.

'Bending' against straightening devices: queer lived experiences of sexuality and sexual health in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Despite global data around increased health risks among sexual and gender diverse populations, lived experiences of young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and others (LGBTQ+) people are often ignored in mainstream health research. This is particularly evident in countries such as Bangladesh where the rights of sexual minorities are not recognised. This article looks at queer lived experiences of sexuality and sexual health within such a context. We use the phenomenological framework of heteronormative 'straightening devices' - mechanisms working to direct people towards heterosexuality, gender conformity, and procreative marriage - to identify 'invisible' structures upholding normative sexual behaviours and see how young people in Bangladesh navigate these in their everyday lives. METHODS: This article is based on qualitative data collected in Dhaka, Bangladesh over nine months in 2019 as part of the first author's doctoral research. Using thematic analysis, we draw on experiences of normative sexual expectations from biographical in-depth interviews with 14 purposively sampled LGBTQ + individuals aged 18 to 24. RESULTS: Respondents identified heteronormative expectations around gender norms of traditional behaviour and presentation for men and women as well as parental expectations of compulsory heterosexuality through marriage. These straightening devices existed at multiple levels, including individual, interpersonal, community, and societal. The four main themes around straightening devices include marriage norms for women; harassment of feminine-presenting bodies in public spaces; heteronormative healthcare; and consequences of not embodying heteronormativity. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted young people's everyday experiences of having to 'bend' to - and against - heteronormative straightening devices at home, in public spaces, and within institutions such as healthcare in Bangladesh. The exploration of queer experiences provides new insights into context-specific ways in which sexual and gender diverse people understand themselves. Further research using the framework of straightening devices can help public health professionals to identify more 'barriers' confronted by sexual and gender diverse young people.

Provision of cervical screening for transmasculine patients: a review of clinical and programmatic guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Most cervical cancer can be prevented through routine screening. Disparities in uptake of routine screening therefore translate into disparities in cervical cancer incidence and outcomes. Transmasculine people including transgender men experience multiple barriers to cervical screening and their uptake of screening is low compared with cisgender women. Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines are needed to improve cervical screening for this group. METHODS: We searched for and synthesised clinical and programmatic guidelines for the provision of cervical screening for transmasculine patients. FINDINGS: The guidelines offer recommendations addressing: (1) reception, check-in and clinic facilities; (2) patient data and invitation to screening; (3) improving inclusion in screening programmes; and (4) sexual history taking, language and identity. Guidelines offer strategies for alleviating physical and psychological discomfort during cervical screening and recommendations on what to do if the screening procedure cannot be completed. Most of the guidelines were from and for high-income countries. DISCUSSION: The evidence base is limited, but existing guidelines provide recommendations to ensure life-saving screening services are available to all who need them. We were only able to identify one set of guidelines for a middle-income country, and none for low-income countries. We encourage the involvement of transmasculine people in the development of future guidelines.

Communicating and understanding pain: Limitations of pain scales for patients with sickle cell disorder and other painful conditions.

Pain communication in healthcare is challenging. We examine use of pain scales to communicate pain severity via a case study of people with sickle cell disorder (SCD). We show how pain communication involves complex social interactions between patients, healthcare professionals and significant others - none of which are included in pain ratings. Failure to account for relational aspects of pain may cause problems for any patient. For SCD, mutual distrust shapes pain communication, further complicating clinical assessments. Moreover, SCD pain is particularly severe, making ratings hard to interpret compared with ratings from non-SCD patients, potentially exacerbating problems in managing pain relief.

Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations.

Authorship of academic papers is a currency that can bring career advantages in academia and other industries. How authorship should be decided is not always clear, particularly in co-produced research with non-academic collaborators, for which existing authorship guidelines are largely silent. In this paper, we critically reflect on what constitutes written authorship in the context of co-produced health research. We present examples from our own work to illustrate the argument we make, including publishing a co-authored paper with non-academic partners. We consider questions of what constitutes authorship and how it is mutually understood. We discuss some of the opportunities and limits to participation and how these might translate into academic authorship as a collaborative research output. Finally, we explore the potential of authorship guidelines as a resource for critical reflection on what we mean by co-produced work and how we recognise contributions to global health research. We suggest that authorship guidelines should be adapted to encourage attribution of co-produced research to include non-academic as well as academic collaborators, and we provide a draft guideline for how this might be done.

Interpregnancy intervals and adverse birth outcomes in high-income countries: An international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most evidence for interpregnancy interval (IPI) and adverse birth outcomes come from studies that are prone to incomplete control for confounders that vary between women. Comparing pregnancies to the same women can address this issue. METHODS: We conducted an international longitudinal cohort study of 5,521,211 births to 3,849,193 women from Australia (1980-2016), Finland (1987-2017), Norway (1980-2016) and the United States (California) (1991-2012). IPI was calculated based on the time difference between two dates-the date of birth of the first pregnancy and the date of conception of the next (index) pregnancy. We estimated associations between IPI and preterm birth (PTB), spontaneous PTB, and small-for-gestational age births (SGA) using logistic regression (between-women analyses). We also used conditional logistic regression comparing IPIs and birth outcomes in the same women (within-women analyses). Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: Compared to an IPI of 18-23 months, there was insufficient evidence for an association between IPI <6 months and overall PTB (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.18) and SGA (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.19), but increased odds of spontaneous PTB (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.21-1.57) in the within-women analysis. We observed elevated odds of all birth outcomes associated with IPI ≥60 months. In comparison, between-women analyses showed elevated odds of adverse birth outcomes for <12 month and >24 month IPIs. CONCLUSIONS: We found consistently elevated odds of adverse birth outcomes following long IPIs. IPI shorter than 6 months were associated with elevated risk of spontaneous PTB, but there was insufficient evidence for increased risk of other adverse birth outcomes. Current recommendations of waiting at least 24 months to conceive after a previous pregnancy, may be unnecessarily long in high-income countries.

Evaluating Complex Interventions Using Qualitative Longitudinal Research: A Case Study of Understanding Pathways to Violence Prevention.

Evaluating social change programs requires methods that account for changes in context, implementation, and participant experience. We present a case study of a school-based partner violence prevention program with young people, where we conducted 33 repeat interviews with nine participants during and after an intervention and analyzed participant trajectories. We show how repeat interviews conducted during and after a social change program were useful in helping us understand how the intervention worked by providing rich contextual information, elucidating gradual shifts among participants, and identifying aspects of the intervention that appear to influence change. Long-term effects of social change interventions are very hard to quantify or measure directly. We argue that a qualitative longitudinal approach provides a way to measure subtle changes that can serve as proxies for longer term impacts.

Unpacking power dynamics in research and evaluation on social accountability for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Over the past decade, social accountability for health has coalesced into a distinct field of research and practice. Whether explicitly stated or not, changed power relations are at the heart of what social accountability practitioners seek, particularly in the context of sexual and reproductive health. Yet, evaluations of social accountability programs frequently fail to assess important power dynamics. In this commentary, we argue that we must include an examination of power in research and evaluation of social accountability in sexual and reproductive health, and suggest ways to do this. The authors are part of a community of practice on measuring social accountability and health outcomes. We share key lessons from our efforts to conduct power sensitive research using different approaches and methods.First, participatory research and evaluation approaches create space for program participants to engage actively in evaluations by defining success. Participation is also one of the key elements of feminist evaluation, which centers power relations rooted in gender. Participatory approaches can strengthen 'traditional' health evaluation approaches by ensuring that the changes assessed are meaningful to communities.Fields from outside health offer approaches that help to describe and assess changes in power dynamics. For example, realist evaluation analyses the causal processes, or mechanisms, grounded in the interactions between social, political and other structures and human agency; programs try to influence these structures and/or human agency. Process tracing requires describing the mechanisms underlying change in power dymanics in a very detailed way, promoting insight into how changes in power relationships are related to the broader program.Finally, case aggregation and comparison entail the aggregation of data from multiple cases to refine theories about when and how programs work. Case aggregation can allow for nuanced attention to context while still producing lessons that are applicable to inform programming more broadly.We hope this brief discussion encourages other researchers and evaluators to share experiences of analysing power relations as part of evaluation of social accountability interventions for sexual and reproductive health so that together, we improve methodology in this crucial area.

Working together to co-produce better health: The experience of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London.

OBJECTIVES: To improve the provision of health care, academics can be asked to collaborate with clinicians, and clinicians with patients. Generating good evidence on health care practice depends on these collaborations working well. Yet such relationships are not the norm. We examine how social science research and health care improvement practice were linked through a programme designed to broker collaborations between clinicians, academics, and patients to improve health care - the UK National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London. We discuss the successes and challenges of the collaboration and make suggestions on how to develop synergistic relationships that facilitate co-production of social science knowledge and its translation into practice. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used, including ethnographic elements and critical, reflexive dialogue between members of the two collaborating teams. RESULTS: Key challenges and remedies were connected with the risks associated with new ways of working. These risks included differing ideas between collaborators about the purpose, value, and expectations of research, and institutional opposition. Dialogue between collaborators did not mean absence of tensions or clashes. Risk-taking was unpopular - institutions, funders, and partners did not always support it, despite simultaneously demanding 'innovation' in producing research that influenced practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our path was made smoother because we had funding to support the creation of a 'potential space' to experiment with different ways of working. Other factors that can enhance collaboration include a shared commitment to dialogical practice, a recognition of the legitimacy of different partners' knowledge, a long timeframe to identify and resolve problems, the maintenance of an enabling environment for collaboration, a willingness to work iteratively and reflexively, and a shared end goal.

Methods to measure effects of social accountability interventions in reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health programs: systematic review and critique.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreed way to measure the effects of social accountability interventions. Studies to examine whether and how social accountability and collective action processes contribute to better health and healthcare services are underway in different areas of health, and health effects are captured using a range of different research designs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of our review is to help inform evaluation efforts by identifying, summarizing, and critically appraising study designs used to assess and measure social accountability interventions' effects on health, including data collection methods and outcome measures. Specifically, we consider the designs used to assess social accountability interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH). DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Social Policy & Practice databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included papers published on or after 1 January 2009 that described an evaluation of the effects of a social accountability intervention on RMNCAH. RESULTS: Twenty-two papers met our inclusion criteria. Methods for assessing or reporting health effects of social accountability interventions varied widely and included longitudinal, ethnographic, and experimental designs. Surprisingly, given the topic area, there were no studies that took an explicit systems-orientated approach. Data collection methods ranged from quantitative scorecard data through to in-depth interviews and observations. Analysis of how interventions achieved their effects relied on qualitative data, whereas quantitative data often raised rather than answered questions, and/or seemed likely to be poor quality. Few studies reported on negative effects or harms; studies did not always draw on any particular theoretical framework. None of the studies where there appeared to be financial dependencies between the evaluators and the intervention implementation teams reflected on whether or how these dependencies might have affected the evaluation. The interventions evaluated in the included studies fell into the following categories: aid chain partnership, social audit, community-based monitoring, community-linked maternal death review, community mobilization for improved health, community reporting hotline, evidence for action, report cards, scorecards, and strengthening health communities. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of methods are currently being used to attempt to evaluate effects of social accountability interventions. The wider context of interventions including the historical or social context is important, as shown in the few studies to consider these dimensions. While many studies collect useful qualitative data that help illuminate how and whether interventions work, the data and analysis are often limited in scope with little attention to the wider context. Future studies taking into account broader sociopolitical dimensions are likely to help illuminate processes of accountability and inform questions of transferability of interventions. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration # CRD42018108252).

Applying a complex adaptive systems approach to the evaluation of a school-based intervention for intimate partner violence prevention in Mexico.

Despite calls for evaluation practice to take a complex systems approach, there are few examples of how to incorporate complexity into real-life evaluations. This article presents the case for using a complex systems approach to evaluate a school-based intimate partner violence-prevention intervention. We conducted a post hoc analysis of qualitative evaluation data to examine the intervention as a potential system disruptor. We analysed data in relation to complexity concepts particularly relevant to schools: 'diverse and dynamic agents', 'interaction', 'unpredictability', 'emergence' and 'context dependency'. The data-two focus groups with facilitators and 33 repeat interviews with 14-17-year-old students-came from an evaluation of a comprehensive sexuality education intervention in Mexico City, which serves as a case study for this analysis. The findings demonstrate an application of complex adaptive systems concepts to qualitative evaluation data. We provide examples of how this approach can shed light on the ways in which interpersonal interactions, group dynamics, the core messages of the course and context influenced the implementation and outcomes of this intervention. This gender-transformative intervention appeared to disrupt pervasive gender norms and reshape beliefs about how to engage in relationships. An intervention comprises multiple dynamic and interacting elements, all of which are unlikely to be consistent across implementation settings. Applying complexity concepts to our analysis added value by helping reframe implementation-related data to focus on how the 'social' aspects of complexity influenced the intervention. Without examining both individual and group processes, evaluations may miss key insights about how the intervention generates change, for whom, and how it interacts with its context. A social complex adaptive systems approach is well-suited to the evaluation of gender-transformative interventions and can help identify how such interventions disrupt the complex social systems in which they are implemented to address intractable societal problems.

Using qualitative evaluation components to help understand context: case study of a family planning intervention with female community health volunteers (FCHVs) in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of health interventions are increasingly concerned with measuring or accounting for 'context'. How to do this is still subject to debate and testing, and is particularly important in the case of family planning where outcomes will inevitably be influenced by contextual factors as well as any intervention effects. We conducted an evaluation of an intervention where female community health volunteers (FCHVs) in Nepal were trained to provide better interpersonal communication on family planning. We included a context-orientated qualitative component to the evaluation. Here, we discuss the evaluation findings, specifically focusing on what was added by attending to the context. We explore and illustrate important dimensions of context that may also be relevant in future evaluation work. METHODS: The evaluation used a mixed methods approach, with a qualitative component which included in-depth interviews with women of reproductive age, FCHVs, and family planning service providers. We conducted iterative, thematic analysis. RESULTS: The life-history fertility and contraception narratives generated from the in-depth interviews contextualised the intervention, yielding nuanced data on contraceptive choices, needs, and areas for future action. For instance, it highlighted how women generally knew about effective contraceptive methods and were willing to use them: information was not a major barrier. Barriers instead included reports of providers refusing service when women were not in the fifth day of their menstrual cycle when this was unnecessary. Privacy and secrecy were important to some women, and risked being undermined by information sharing between FCHVs and health services. The qualitative component also revealed unanticipated positive effects of our own evaluation strategies: using referral slips seemed to make it easier for women to access contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Life history narratives collected via in-depth interviews helped us understand pathways from intervention to effect from the user point of view without narrowly focusing only on the intervention, highlighting possible areas for action that would otherwise have been missed. By attending to context in a nuanced way in evaluations, we can build a body of evidence that not only informs future interventions within that context, but also builds better knowledge of contextual factors likely to be important elsewhere.