Government responses to COVID-19 and impact on GBV services and programmes: comparative analysis of the situation in South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria.

As governments impose restrictive policies to contain infectious disease outbreaks, pre-existing gender-based inequalities are often exacerbated, increasing the risk of gender-based violence (GBV). Despite international guidance on the need for continued provision of GBV services during emergencies, governments often de-prioritise GBV services and programmes. We conducted a rapid assessment in South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria to examine the impact of COVID-19 policies on the availability of GBV prevention and response services. The study team interviewed 80 stakeholders representing different GBV services in the four countries. The interviews revealed strikingly similar government mis-steps that disrupted the availability of comprehensive GBV services. In all four countries, the government's failure to exempt the provision of multi-sectoral GBV services from initial lockdown restrictions led to confusion and disrupted the provision of critical GBV services such as clinical management of rape, legal and judicial services, psychosocial services, availability of shelters, and community-based prevention activities. The government's imposition of curfews, stay-at-home orders, and transportation restrictions further diminished access to services. Governments must strengthen currently available GBV prevention and response services and be better prepared for future pandemics. Following international guidelines, governments should deem GBV services as essential from the beginning with clear implementation plans. Governments must invest in community-based solutions and the expansion of digital tools to ensure everyone, especially those likely to be structurally excluded, have access to critical services during an emergency.

Gender-Based Violence Is a Human Rights Violation: Are Donors Responding Adequately? What a Decade of Donor Interventions in Colombia, Kenya, and Uganda Reveals.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a violation of human rights and must be addressed as such. This paper examines whether donor practices align with a rights-based approach, using data from our comprehensive study of foreign funding flows related to GBV in Colombia, Kenya, and Uganda from 2010 to 2020. By analyzing data from 1,180 grants-and providing parallel analyses of the state of GBV, and GBV reporting and interventions in each country-we demonstrate donors' role in shaping GBV outcomes and their consequent duty to address policies and practices that violate rights. Accordingly, we propose changes in donor practices to promote realization of the right to freedom from violence.

Beyond abortion: impacts of the expanded global gag rule in Kenya, Madagascar and Nepal.

Since 1984, Republican administrations in the US have enacted the global gag rule (GGR), which prohibits non-US-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from providing, referring for, or counselling on abortion as a method of family planning, or advocating for the liberalisation of abortion laws, as a condition for receiving certain categories of US Global Health Assistance. Versions of the GGR implemented before 2017 applied to US Family Planning Assistance only, but the Trump administration expanded the policy's reach by applying it to nearly all types of Global Health Assistance. Documentation of the policy's harms in the peer-reviewed and grey literature has grown considerably in recent years, however few cross-country analyses exist. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the GGR's impacts across three countries with distinct abortion laws: Kenya, Madagascar and Nepal. We conducted 479 in-depth qualitative interviews between August 2018 and March 2020. Participants included representatives of Ministries of Health and NGOs that did and did not certify the GGR, providers of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services at public and private facilities, community health workers, and contraceptive clients. We observed greater breakdown of NGO coordination and chilling effects in countries where abortion is legal and there is a sizeable community of non-US-based NGOs working on SRH. However, we found that the GGR fractured SRH service delivery in all countries, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. Contraceptive service availability, accessibility and training for providers were particularly damaged. Further, this analysis makes clear that the GGR has substantial and deleterious effects on public sector infrastructure for SRH in addition to NGOs.

COVID-19 and gender-based violence service provision in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Gender-based violence (GBV) policies and services in the United States (U.S.) have historically been underfunded and siloed from other health services. Soon after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, reports emerged noting increases in GBV and disruption of health services but few studies have empirically investigated these impacts. This study examines how the existing GBV funding and policy landscape, COVID-19, and resulting state policies in the first six months of the pandemic affect GBV health service provision in the U.S. METHODS: This is a mixed method study consisting of 1) an analysis of state-by-state emergency response policies review; 2) a quantitative analysis of a survey of U.S.-based GBV service providers (N = 77); and 3) a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with U.S.-based GBV service providers (N = 11). Respondents spanned a range of organization types, populations served, and states. RESULTS: Twenty-one states enacted protections for GBV survivors and five states included explicit exemptions from non-essential business closures for GBV service providers. Through the surveys and interviews, GBV service providers note three major themes on COVID-19's impact on GBV services: reductions in GBV service provision and quality and increased workload, shifts in service utilization, and funding impacts. Findings also indicate GBV inequities were exacerbated for historically underserved groups. DISCUSSION: The noted disruptions on GBV services from the COVID-19 pandemic overlaid long-term policy and funding limitations that left service providers unprepared for the challenges posed by the pandemic. Future policies, in emergency and non-emergency contexts, should recognize GBV as essential care and ensure comprehensive services for clients, particularly members of historically underserved groups.

Multilevel Determinants of Integrated Service Delivery for Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health in Humanitarian Settings.

Inter-agency guidelines recommend that survivors of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings receive multisectoral services consistent with a survivor-centered approach. Providing integrated services across sectors is challenging, and aspirations often fall short in practice. In this study, we explore factors that influence the implementation of a multisectoral, integrated intervention intended to reduce psychological distress and intimate partner violence in Nyarugusu Refugee Camp, Tanzania. We analyzed data from a desk review of donor, legal, and policy documents; a gender-based violence services mapping conducted through 15 interviews and 6 focus group discussions; and a qualitative process evaluation with 29 stakeholders involved in the implementation of the integrated psychosocial program. We identified the challenges of implementing a multisectoral, integrated intervention for refugee survivors of intimate partner violence at the structural, inter-institutional, intra-institutional, and in social and interpersonal levels. Key determinants of successful implementation included the legal context, financing, inter-agency coordination, engagement and ownership, and the ability to manage competing priorities. Implementing a multisectoral, integrated response for survivors of intimate partner violence is complex and influenced by interrelated factors from policy and financing to institutional and stakeholder engagement. Further investment in identifying strategies to overcome the existing challenges of implementing multisectoral approaches that align with global guidelines is needed to effectively address the burden of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings.

'Scrambling to figure out what to do': a mixed method analysis of COVID-19's impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: A weak and politicised COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States (US) that failed to prioritise sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) overlaid longstanding SRHR inequities. In this study we investigated how COVID-19 affected SRHR service provision in the US during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHODS: We used a multiphase, three-part, mixed method approach incorporating: (1) a comprehensive review of state-by-state emergency response policies that mapped state-level actions to protect or suspend SRHR services including abortion, (2) a survey of SRHR service providers (n=40) in a sample of 10 states that either protected or suspended services and (3) in-depth interviews (n=15) with SRHR service providers and advocacy organisations. RESULTS: Twenty-one states designated some or all SRHR services as essential and therefore exempt from emergency restrictions. Protections, however, varied by state and were not always comprehensive. Fourteen states acted to suspend abortion. Five cross-cutting themes surrounding COVID-19's impact on SRHR services emerged across the survey and interviews: reductions in SRHR service provision; shifts in service utilisation; infrastructural impacts; the critical role of state and local governments; and exacerbation of SRHR inequities for certain groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates serious disruptions to the provision of SRHR care that exacerbated existing SRHR inequities. The presence or absence of policy protections for SRHR services had critical implications for providers and patients. Policymakers and service providers must prioritise and integrate SRHR into emergency preparedness planning and implementation, with earmarked funding and tailored service delivery for historically oppressed groups.

Impact of COVID-19 on Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response Services in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Epidemics and other complex emergencies historically have had a disproportionate impact on women and girls, increasing their vulnerability to gender-based violence (GBV). The COVID-19 pandemic has been no different, with reports of rising cases of GBV emerging worldwide. Already a significant problem in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa, GBV in these countries has been exacerbated by government restrictions intended to contain the spread of COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the availability of GBV prevention and response services from the perspective of the organizations that provide them. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of people who work in GBV prevention and response in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa was administered from July to October 2020. A convenience sample was identified through web search, contacts of in-country consultants, and relevant listservs and technical working groups. Descriptive analyses were completed using SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 187 respondents completed the survey. Nearly all (98.9%) survey respondents reported that COVID-19 impacted their work. The majority (77.9%) stated that work decreased due to government restrictions or GBV services being deemed non-essential. The types of service most impacted were community-based prevention, shelters, and legal services. Survey respondents overwhelmingly agreed (99.3%) that COVID-19 impacted GBV prevalence and identified adolescents and women with disabilities as particularly vulnerable groups. CONCLUSIONS: GBV prevention and response services in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa were highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, largely due to government restrictions and the failure of governments to deem GBV services as essential. Preparedness for future crises should ensure that GBV is adequately prioritized in the initial response in order to maintain service availability with special attention paid to at-risk populations.

Foreign ideology vs. national priority: impacts of the US Global Gag Rule on Nepal's sexual and reproductive healthcare system.

In recent decades, bold steps taken by the government of Nepal to liberalise its abortion law and increase the affordability and accessibility of safe abortion and family planning have contributed to significant improvements in maternal mortality and other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. The Trump administration's Global Gag Rule (GGR) - which prohibits foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from receiving US global health assistance unless they certify that they will not use funding from any source to engage in service delivery, counselling, referral, or advocacy related to abortion - threatens this progress. This paper examines the impact of the GGR on civil society, NGOs, and SRH service delivery in Nepal. We conducted 205 semi-structured in-depth interviews in 2 phases (August-September 2018, and June-September 2019), and across 22 districts. Interview participants included NGO programme managers, government employees, facility managers and service providers in the NGO and private sectors, and service providers in public sector facilities. This large, two-phased study complements existing anecdotal research by capturing impacts of the GGR as they evolved over the course of a year, and by surfacing pathways through which this policy affects SRH outcomes. We found that low policy awareness and a considerable chilling effect cut across levels of the Nepali health system and exacerbated impacts caused by routine implementation of the GGR, undermining the ecology of SRH service delivery in Nepal as well as national sovereignty.

From bad to worse: global governance of abortion and the Global Gag Rule.

The Trump Administration's Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) significantly expands the "Global Gag Rule" - and, in so doing, weakens the global governance of abortion. By chilling debate, reducing transparency, ghettoising sexual and reproductive health and rights work, and interfering with research, PLGHA makes an already bad context demonstrably worse. Individual women suffer the most, as PLGHA inhibits ongoing efforts to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality.

Foreign assistance or attack? Impact of the expanded Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Kenya.

In 2017, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy requires non-governmental organisations (NGOs) not based in the US to certify that they will not provide, counsel, refer, or advocate for abortion as a method of family planning in order to receive most categories of US global health assistance. Robust empirical evidence demonstrating the policy's impacts is acutely lacking. This paper describes the effects of the expanded GGR policy in Kenya eighteen months after its reinstatement. We conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected representatives of US- and non-US-based NGOs, as well as managers and health providers at public and private health facilities, between September 2018 and March 2019. Organisations reported critical funding loss as they were forced to choose between US government-funded projects and projects supporting safe abortion. This resulted in the fragmentation of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services, and closure of some service delivery programmes. At public and private health facilities, participants reported staffing shortages and increased stock-outs of family planning and safe abortion commodities. The expanded GGR's effects transcended abortion care by also disrupting collaboration and health promotion activities, strengthening opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights in some segments of Kenyan civil society and government. Our findings indicate that the GGR exposes and exacerbates the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the Kenyan health system, and illuminates the need for action to mitigate these harms.

Migrant and refugee health: Complex health associations among diverse contexts call for tailored and rights-based solutions.

In an Editorial, Guest Editors Paul Spiegel, Terry McGovern and Kol Wickramage discuss the Special Issue on Refugee and Migrant Health.

Lessons Never Learned: Crisis and gender-based violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposes underlying inequalities in our socio-economic and health systems, such as gender-based violence (GBV). In emergencies, particularly ones that involve quarantine, GBV often increases. Policymakers must utilize community expertise, technology and existing global guidelines to disrupt these trends in the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic. Gender norms and roles relegating women to the realm of care work puts them on the frontlines in an epidemic, while often excluding them from developing the response. It is critical to value women's roles in society and include their voices in the decision-making process to avoid unintended consequences and ensure a comprehensive response that caters to the needs of the most vulnerable groups.

Association between plural legal systems and sexual and reproductive health outcomes for women and girls in Nigeria: A state-level ecological study.

Nigeria has a plural legal system in which various sources of law govern simultaneously. Inconsistent and conflicting legal frameworks can reinforce pre-existing health disparities in sexual and reproductive health (SRH). While previous studies indicate poor SRH outcomes for Nigerian women and girls, particularly in Northern states, the relationship between customary and religious law (CRL) and SRH has not been explored. We conducted a state-level ecological study to examine the relationship between CRL and SRH outcomes among women in 36 Nigerian states and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja (n = 37), using publicly available Demographic and Health Survey data from 2013. Indicators were guided by published research and included contraception use among married women, total fertility rate, median age at first birth, receipt of antenatal care, delivery location, and comprehensive knowledge of HIV. To account for economic differences between states, crude linear regression models were compared to a multivariable model, adjusting for per capita GDP. All SRH outcomes, except comprehensive knowledge of HIV, were statistically significantly more negative in CRL states compared to non-CRL states, even after accounting for state-level GDP. In CRL states in 2013, compared to non-CRL states, the proportion of married women who used any method of contraception was 22.7 percentage points lower ([95% CI: -15.78 --29.64], p<0.001), a difference that persisted in a model adjusting for per capita GDP (b[adj] = -16.15, 95% CI: [-8.64 --23.66], p<0.001.). While this analysis of retrospective state-level data found robust associations between CRL and poor SRH outcomes, future research should incorporate prospective individual-level data to further elucidate these findings.