Protocol for a matched-pair cluster control trial of ARCHES (Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings) among women and girls seeking contraceptive services from community-based clinics in Nairobi, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Reproductive coercion (RC) and intimate partner violence (IPV) are prevalent forms of gender-based violence (GBV) associated with reduced female control over contraceptive use and subsequent unintended pregnancy. Although the World Health Organization has recommended the identification and support of GBV survivors within health services, few clinic-based models have been shown to reduce IPV or RC, particularly in low or middle-income countries (LMICs). To date, clinic-based GBV interventions have not been shown to reduce RC or unintended pregnancy in LMIC settings. INTERVENTION: ARCHES (Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings) is a single-session, clinic-based model delivered within routine contraceptive counseling that has been demonstrated to reduce RC in the United States. ARCHES was adapted to the Kenyan context via a participatory process to reduce GBV and unintended pregnancy among women and girls seeking contraceptive services in this setting. Core elements of ARCHES include enhanced contraceptive counseling that addresses RC, opportunity for patient disclosure of RC and IPV (and subsequent warm referral to local services), and provision of a palm-sized educational booklet. METHODS: A matched-pair cluster control trial is being conducted to assess whether the ARCHES intervention (treatment condition), as compared to standard-of-care contraceptive counseling (control condition), reduces RC and IPV, and improves contraceptive outcomes for woman and girls of reproductive age (15 to 49 years) seeking contraceptive services from community-based clinics in Nairobi, Kenya. All six clinics were assigned to intervention-control pairs based on similarities in patient volume and demographics, physical structure and neighborhood context. Survey data will be collected from patients immediately prior to their clinic visit (baseline, T1), immediately after their clinic visit (exit), and at 3- and 6-months post-visit (T2 and T3, respectively). DISCUSSION: This study is the first to assess the efficacy of an adaptation of the ARCHES model to reduce GBV and improve reproductive health outside of the U.S., and one of only a small number of controlled trials to assess reductions in GBV associated with a clinic-based program in an LMIC context. Evidence from this trial will inform health system efforts to reduce GBV, and to enhance female contraceptive control and reproductive health in Kenya and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered May 23, 2018 - ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03534401. Unique Protocol ID: 170084.

The impact of HIV/SRH service integration on workload: analysis from the Integra Initiative in two African settings.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services as a way to improve the efficiency of human resources (HR) for health in low- and middle-income countries. Although this is supported by a wealth of evidence on the acceptability and clinical effectiveness of service integration, there is little evidence on whether staff in general health services can easily absorb HIV services. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of HR integration through task shifting/sharing and staff workload in the context of the Integra Initiative - a large-scale five-year evaluation of HIV/SRH integration. We describe the level, characteristics and changes in HR integration in the context of wider efforts to integrate HIV/SRH, and explore the impact of HR integration on staff workload. RESULTS: Improvements in the range of services provided by staff (HR integration) were more likely to be achieved in facilities which also improved other elements of integration. While there was no overall relationship between integration and workload at the facility level, HIV/SRH integration may be most influential on staff workload for provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling (PITC) and postnatal care (PNC) services, particularly where HIV care and treatment services are being supported with extra SRH/HIV staffing. Our findings therefore suggest that there may be potential for further efficiency gains through integration, but overall the pace of improvement is slow. CONCLUSIONS: This descriptive analysis explores the effect of HIV/SRH integration on staff workload through economies of scale and scope in high- and medium-HIV prevalence settings. We find some evidence to suggest that there is potential to improve productivity through integration, but, at the same time, significant challenges are being faced, with the pace of productivity gain slow. We recommend that efforts to implement integration are assessed in the broader context of HR planning to ensure that neither staff nor patients are negatively impacted by integration policy.

The Costs of Delivering Integrated HIV and Sexual Reproductive Health Services in Limited Resource Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To present evidence on the total costs and unit costs of delivering six integrated sexual reproductive health and HIV services in a high and medium HIV prevalence setting, in order to support policy makers and planners scaling up these essential services. DESIGN: A retrospective facility based costing study conducted in 40 non-government organization and public health facilities in Kenya and Swaziland. METHODS: Economic and financial costs were collected retrospectively for the year 2010/11, from each study site with an aim to estimate the cost per visit of six integrated HIV and SRH services. A full cost analysis using a combination of bottom-up and step-down costing methods was conducted from the health provider's perspective. The main unit of analysis is the economic unit cost per visit for each service. Costs are converted to 2013 International dollars. RESULTS: The mean cost per visit for the HIV/SRH services ranged from $Int 14.23 (PNC visit) to $Int 74.21 (HIV treatment visit). We found considerable variation in the unit costs per visit across settings with family planning services exhibiting the least variation ($Int 6.71-52.24) and STI treatment and HIV treatment visits exhibiting the highest variation in unit cost ranging from ($Int 5.44-281.85) and ($Int 0.83-314.95), respectively. Unit costs of visits were driven by fixed costs while variability in visit costs across facilities was explained mainly by technology used and service maturity. CONCLUSION: For all services, variability in unit costs and cost components suggest that potential exists to reduce costs through better use of both human and capital resources, despite the high proportion of expenditure on drugs and medical supplies. Further work is required to explore the key drivers of efficiency and interventions that may facilitate efficiency improvements.