Specific considerations for research on the effectiveness of multisectoral collaboration: methods and lessons from 12 country case studies.

BACKGROUND: The success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is predicated on multisectoral collaboration (MSC), and the COVID-19 pandemic makes it more urgent to learn how this can be done better. Complex challenges facing countries, such as COVID-19, cut across health, education, environment, financial and other sectors. Addressing these challenges requires the range of responsible sectors and intersecting services - across health, education, social and financial protection, economic development, law enforcement, among others - transform the way they work together towards shared goals. While the necessity of MSC is recognized, research is needed to understand how sectors collaborate, inform how to do so more efficiently, effectively and equitably, and ascertain similarities and differences across contexts. To answer these questions and inform practice, research to strengthen the evidence-base on MSC is critical. METHODS: This paper draws on a 12-country study series on MSC for health and sustainable development, in the context of the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. It is written by core members of the research coordination and country teams. Issues were analyzed during the study period through 'real-time' discussions and structured reporting, as well as through literature reviews and retrospective feedback and analysis at the end of the study. RESULTS: We identify four considerations that are unique to MSC research which will be of interest to other researchers, in the context of COVID-19 and beyond: 1) use theoretical frameworks to frame research questions as relevant to all sectors and to facilitate theoretical generalizability and evolution; 2) specifically incorporate sectoral analysis into MSC research methods; 3) develop a core set of research questions, using mixed methods and contextual adaptations as needed, with agreement on criteria for research rigor; and 4) identify shared indicators of success and failure across sectors to assess MSCs. CONCLUSION: In responding to COVID-19 it is evident that effective MSC is an urgent priority. It enables partners from diverse sectors to effectively convene to do more together than alone. Our findings have practical relevance for achieving this objective and contribute to the growing literature on partnerships and collaboration. We must seize the opportunity here to identify remaining knowledge gaps on how diverse sectors can work together efficiently and effectively in different settings to accelerate progress towards achieving shared goals.

Exploring provider preference and provision of abortion methods and stigma: Secondary analysis of a United Kingdom provider survey.

INTRODUCTION: Method choice is an important component of quality abortion care and qualitative research suggests that abortion stigma can influence provider preference and provision of abortion methods. This study is the first to explore the relationships between abortion providers' method preferences, their provision of medication or instrumentation abortion or both methods, and abortion stigma. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a survey of United Kingdom (UK) abortion providers (N = 172) to describe and compare providers' self-reported method preferences and provision. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between method preference and provider experiences of abortion stigma (measured using a revised Abortion Provider Stigma Scale (APSS)), adjusting for relevant provider and facility characteristics. RESULTS: Almost half (52%) of providers reported that they only provided medication abortion care, while 5% only provided instrumentation abortion care and 43% provided both methods. Most (62%) preferred to provide both methods while 32% preferred to provide only medication abortion and 6% only instrumentation abortion. There was no significant difference in revised APSS scores by provider method preference or provision. DISCUSSION: Most surveyed UK abortion providers prefer to offer both methods, but over half only provide medication abortion. This may reflect patients' preferences for medication abortion, and health system and legal constraints on instrumentation abortion. Addressing these systemic constraints on method provision could expand patient choice. Providers' method preference was not significantly associated with provider stigma but future research should consider the influence of structural stigma on method provision at the health system level.

'Repeat abortion', a phrase to be avoided? Qualitative insights into labelling and stigma.

BACKGROUND: In recent years there has been growing international interest in identifying risk factors associated with 'repeat abortion', and developing public health initiatives that might reduce the rate. This article draws on a research study looking at young women's abortion experience in England and Wales. The study was commissioned with a specific focus on women who had undergone more than one abortion. We examine what may influence women's post-abortion reproductive behaviour, in addition to exploring abortion-related stigma, in the light of participants' own narratives. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-methods research study: a quantitative survey of 430 women aged 16-24 years, and in-depth qualitative interviews with 36 women who had undergone one or more abortions. This article focuses on the qualitative data from two subsets of young women: those we interviewed twice (n=17) and those who had experienced more than one unintended/unwanted pregnancy (n=15). RESULTS: The qualitative research findings demonstrate the complexity of women's contraceptive histories and reproductive lives, and thus the inherent difficulty of establishing causal patterns for more than one abortion, beyond the obvious observation that contraception was not used, or not used effectively. Women who had experienced more than one abortion did, however, express intensified abortion shame. CONCLUSIONS: This article argues that categorising women who have an abortion in different ways depending on previous episodes is not helpful. It may also be damaging, and generate increased stigma, for women who have more than one abortion.

Hidden realities: What women do when they want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in Bolivia.

OBJECTIVE: To explore women's experience of unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in Bolivia, where nearly all induced abortions are carried out in clandestine, unregulated, and unsafe conditions. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative research methods, including focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and a structured survey of women of reproductive age, were used to explore the experience of unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in poor urban areas of 5 Bolivian cities. RESULTS: Of the 1175 sexually experienced women surveyed, 13% reported having had an induced abortion. The methods they tried included surgical abortion, taking misoprostol, drinking herbal and chemical preparations, and inflicting physical trauma on themselves. Many women made multiple attempts before successfully terminating a pregnancy. Lack of knowledge and confusion about how to use misoprostol may have contributed to the complications that resulted in seeking postabortion care. CONCLUSION: Increased access to accurate information and counseling about abortion options are paramount if women are to make informed decisions and minimize health risks.