Accountability strategies for sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in humanitarian settings: a scoping review.
Accountability
Governance
Humanitarian
Humanitarian/ development nexus
Reproductive rights
Sexual and reproductive health
Journal
Conflict and health
ISSN: 1752-1505
Titre abrégé: Confl Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101286573
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2019
accepted:
28
02
2020
entrez:
14
4
2020
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many of the 35 million women and girls aged 15-49 requiring humanitarian assistance have inadequate access to the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to which they are entitled. Ensuring accountability is critical to realizing their SRH and reproductive rights (RR). This scoping review examines the extent and nature of existing evidence on accountability strategies for SRH in humanitarian settings in different geographical scopes/contexts, and contextualizes these findings in the larger thematic literature. This review seeks to answer the following questions: What accountability strategies are employed to address the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of SRH in humanitarian settings? What do we know about the successes and challenges of the given strategies? What are the implications for practice? We consulted public health, social science, and legal databases including SCOPUS, PubMed, ProQuest, and LexisNexis for peer-reviewed articles, as well as Google Advanced search for grey literature; the search was conducted in March 2019. We searched for relevant articles and documents relating to accountability, humanitarian, and SRH and/or RR. To identify key challenges not reflected in the literature and additional grey literature, 18 key informants from international NGOs, local government bodies, academia, and donor agencies were interviewed from March-June 2019. A total of 209 papers and documents were identified via our literature searches and interviews for review. We identified three categories of approaches to accountability in our background reading, and we then applied these to the papers reviewed a priori In the last 20 years, there has been increasing standard and guideline development and program experiences related to accountability in humanitarian settings. Yet, the emphasis is on tools or mechanisms for accountability with less attention to changing norms regarding SRH and RR within affected communities, and to a lesser extent, among implementers of humanitarian programs or to institutionalizing community participation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many of the 35 million women and girls aged 15-49 requiring humanitarian assistance have inadequate access to the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to which they are entitled. Ensuring accountability is critical to realizing their SRH and reproductive rights (RR).
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review examines the extent and nature of existing evidence on accountability strategies for SRH in humanitarian settings in different geographical scopes/contexts, and contextualizes these findings in the larger thematic literature. This review seeks to answer the following questions: What accountability strategies are employed to address the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of SRH in humanitarian settings? What do we know about the successes and challenges of the given strategies? What are the implications for practice?
METHODS
METHODS
We consulted public health, social science, and legal databases including SCOPUS, PubMed, ProQuest, and LexisNexis for peer-reviewed articles, as well as Google Advanced search for grey literature; the search was conducted in March 2019. We searched for relevant articles and documents relating to accountability, humanitarian, and SRH and/or RR. To identify key challenges not reflected in the literature and additional grey literature, 18 key informants from international NGOs, local government bodies, academia, and donor agencies were interviewed from March-June 2019.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 209 papers and documents were identified via our literature searches and interviews for review. We identified three categories of approaches to accountability in our background reading, and we then applied these to the papers reviewed a priori
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In the last 20 years, there has been increasing standard and guideline development and program experiences related to accountability in humanitarian settings. Yet, the emphasis is on tools or mechanisms for accountability with less attention to changing norms regarding SRH and RR within affected communities, and to a lesser extent, among implementers of humanitarian programs or to institutionalizing community participation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32280369
doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00264-2
pii: 264
pmc: PMC7137319
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
18Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2009 Apr-Jun;32(2):144-57
pubmed: 19461231
Reprod Health Matters. 2005 May;13(25):11-8
pubmed: 16035592
Reprod Health Matters. 2017 Nov;25(51):140-150
pubmed: 29231787
Glob Public Health. 2018 Nov;13(11):1650-1669
pubmed: 29382275
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 02;10(9):e0137412
pubmed: 26331474
Popul Health Metr. 2016 Oct 6;14:34
pubmed: 27757070
Health Policy Plan. 2004 Nov;19(6):371-9
pubmed: 15459162
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Feb 05;15:17
pubmed: 25652646
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Aug 28;14:359
pubmed: 25167872
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Feb 04;3(1):14-24
pubmed: 25745117
Confl Health. 2015 Sep 03;9:27
pubmed: 26336511
Disasters. 2018 Jan;42 Suppl 1:S3-S16
pubmed: 29281135
Glob Public Health. 2013;8(3):342-56
pubmed: 23394618
PLoS One. 2018 May 31;13(5):e0196788
pubmed: 29851951
J Hosp Med. 2019 Jun 19;14(7):416-418
pubmed: 31251164
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018 Mar 30;6(1):161-177
pubmed: 29602870
PLoS Curr. 2016 Apr 19;8:
pubmed: 27226926
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4
pubmed: 25034198
Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019 May;27(2):1622357
pubmed: 31533591
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 May;5(5):e480-e481
pubmed: 28302563
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Dec;21(12):2161-2168
pubmed: 29071667
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Sep 14;2(3):e000302
pubmed: 29225945
Lancet. 2014 Jun 14;383(9934):2023-2024
pubmed: 24923527
Disasters. 2019 Jul 4;:
pubmed: 31270823
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Confl Health. 2015 Jan 07;9:2
pubmed: 25904978
Reprod Health Matters. 2017 Nov;25(51):40-47
pubmed: 29189110
Disasters. 2015 Oct;39(4):626-47
pubmed: 25752322
Confl Health. 2013 Jul 03;7:14
pubmed: 23819561
Nurs Ethics. 2012 Jul;19(4):538-49
pubmed: 22496055
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Feb 04;3(1):25-33
pubmed: 25745118
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Nov;216:33-40
pubmed: 30253252