Towards a Feminist Global Health Policy: Power, intersectionality, and transformation.

In the realm of global health policy, the intricacies of power dynamics and intersectionality have become increasingly evident. Structurally embedded power hierarchies constitute a significant concern in achieving health for all and demand transformational change. Adopting intersectional feminist approaches potentially mitigates health inequities through more inclusive and responsive health policies. While feminist approaches to foreign and development policies are receiving increasing attention, they are not accorded the importance they deserve in global health policy. This article presents a framework for a Feminist Global Health Policy (FGHP), outlines the objectives and underlying principles and identifies the actors responsible for its meaningful implementation. Recognising that power hierarchies and societal contexts inherently shape research, the proposed framework was developed via a participatory research approach that aligns with feminist principles. Three independent online focus groups were conducted between August and September 2022 with 11 participants affiliated to the global-academic or local-activist level and covering all WHO regions. The qualitative content analysis revealed that a FGHP must be centred on considerations of intersectionality, power and knowledge paradigms to present meaningful alternatives to the current structures. By balancing guiding principles with sensitivity for context-specific adaptations, the framework is designed to be applicable locally and globally, whilst its adoption is intended to advance health equity and reproductive justice, with communities and policymakers identified as the main actors. This study underscores the importance of dismantling power structures by fostering intersectional and participatory approaches for a more equitable global health landscape. The FGHP framework is intended to initiate debate among global health practitioners, policymakers, researchers and communities. Whilst an undeniably intricate and time-consuming process, continuous and collaborative work towards health equity is imperative to translate this vision into practice.

Addressing power asymmetries in global health: Imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seye Abimbola and co-authors argue for a transformation in global health research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world.

Correction to: Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to reduce men's perpetration of intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to reduce men's perpetration of intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Men's perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) limits gains in health and wellbeing for populations globally. Largely informal, rapidly expanding peri-urban settlements, with limited basic services such as electricity, have high prevalence rates of IPV. Evidence on how to reduce men's perpetration, change social norms and patriarchal attitudes within these settings is limited. Our cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Sonke CHANGE intervention in reducing use of sexual and/or physical IPV and severity of perpetration by men aged 18-40 years over 2 years. METHODOLOGY: The theory-based intervention delivered activities to bolster community action, including door-to-door discussions, workshops, drawing on the CHANGE curriculum, and deploying community action teams over 18 months. In 2016 and 2018, we collected data from a cohort of men, recruited from 18 clusters; nine were randomised to receive the intervention, while the nine control clusters received no intervention. A self-administered questionnaire, using audio-computer assisted software, asked about sociodemographics, gender attitudes, mental health, and the use and severity of IPV. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis at the cluster level comparing the expected risk to observed risk of using IPV while controlling for baseline characteristics. A secondary analysis used latent classes (LCA) of men to see whether there were differential effects of the intervention for subgroups of men. RESULTS: Of 2406 men recruited, 1458 (63%) were followed to 2 years. Overall, we saw a reduction in men's reports of physical, sexual and severe IPV from baseline to endpoint (40.2% to 25.4%, 31.8% to 15.8%, and 33.4% to 18.2%, respectively). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no measurable differences between intervention and control clusters for primary IPV outcomes. Difference in the cluster-level proportion of physical IPV perpetration was 0.002 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.07 to 0.08). Similarly, differences between arms for sexual IPV was 0.01 (95% CI - 0.04 to 0.06), while severe IPV followed a similar pattern (Diff = 0.01; 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.07). A secondary analysis using LCA suggests that among the men living in intervention communities, there was a greater reduction in IPV among less violent and more law abiding men than among more highly violent men, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The intervention, when implemented in a peri-urban settlement, had limited effect in reducing IPV perpetrated by male residents. Further analysis showed it was unable to transform entrenched gender attitudes and use of IPV by those men who use the most violence, but the intervention showed promise for men who use violence less. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02823288. Registered on 30 June 2016.

Process evaluation of a community mobilization intervention for preventing men's partner violence use in peri-urban South Africa.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is experienced by one-third of women globally, yet few programs attempt to shift men's IPV perpetration. Community mobilization is a potential strategy for reducing men's IPV perpetration, but this has rarely been examined globally. We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation alongside a trial testing community mobilization in peri-urban South Africa. We used in-depth interviews (n=114), participant observation (160 h), and monitoring and evaluation data to assess program delivery. Qualitative data (verbatim transcripts and observation notes) were managed in Dedoose using thematic coding and quantitative data were descriptively analyzed using Stata13. We learned that outreach elements of community mobilization were implemented with high fidelity, but that critical reflection and local advocacy were difficult to achieve. The context of a peri-urban settlement (characterized by poor infrastructure, migrancy, low education, social marginalization, and high levels of violence) severely limited intervention delivery, as did lack of institutional support for staff and activist volunteers. That community mobilization was poorly implemented may explain null trial findings; in the larger trial, the intervention failed to measurably reduce men's IPV perpetration. Designing community mobilization for resource-constrained settings may require additional financial, infrastructural, organizational, or political support to effectively engage community members and reduce IPV.

Sub-national perspectives on the implementation of a national community health worker programme in Gauteng Province, South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: In 2011, in line with principles for Universal Health Coverage, South Africa formalised community health workers (CHWs) into the national health system in order to strengthen primary healthcare. The national policy proposed that teams of CHWs, called Ward-based Primary Healthcare Outreach Teams (WBPHCOTs), supervised by a professional nurse were implemented. This paper explores WBPHCOTs' and managers' perspectives on the implementation of the CHW programme in one district in South Africa at the early stages of implementation guided by the Implementation Stages Framework. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study consisting of five focus group discussions and 14 in-depth interviews with CHWs, team leaders and managers. A content analysis of data was conducted. RESULTS: There were significant weaknesses in early implementation resulting from a vague national policy and a rushed implementation plan. During the installation stage, adaptations were made to address gaps including the appointment of subdistrict managers and enrolled nurses as team leaders. Staff preparation of CHWs and team leaders to perform their roles was inadequate. To compensate, team members supported each another and assisted with technical skills where they could. Structural issues, such as CHWs receiving a stipend rather than being employed, were an ongoing implementation challenge. Another challenge was that facility managers were employed by the local government authority while the CHW programme was perceived to be a provincial programme. CONCLUSION: The implementation of complex programmes requires a shared vision held by all stakeholders. Adaptations occur at different implementation stages, which require a feedback mechanism to inform the implementation in other settings. The CHW programme represented a policy advance but lacked detail with respect to human resources, budget, supervision, training and sustainability, which made it a difficult furrow to plough. This study points to how progressive reform remains fraught without due attention to the minutiae of practice.