Associations between child marriage and food insecurity in Zimbabwe: a participatory mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Child marriage is a global crisis underpinned by gender inequality and discrimination against girls. A small evidence base suggests that food insecurity crises can be both a driver and a consequence of child marriage. However, these linkages are still ambiguous. This paper aims to understand how food insecurity influences child marriage practices in Chiredzi, Zimbabwe. METHODS: Mixed methods, including participant-led storytelling via SenseMaker® and key informant interviews, were employed to examine the relationship between food insecurity and child marriage within a broader context of gender and socio-economic inequality. We explored the extent to which food insecurity elevates adolescent girls' risk of child marriage; and how food insecurity influences child marriage decision-making among caregivers and adolescents. Key patterns that were generated by SenseMaker participants' interpretations of their own stories were visually identified in the meta-data, and then further analyzed. Semi-structured guides were used to facilitate key informant interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed and translated to English, then imported into NVivo for coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,668 community members participated in SenseMaker data collection, while 22 staff participated in interviews. Overall, we found that food insecurity was a primary concern among community members. Food insecurity was found to be among the contextual factors of deprivation that influenced parents' and adolescent girls' decision making around child marriage. Parents often forced their daughters into marriage to relieve the household economic burden. At the same time, adolescents are initiating their own marriages due to limited alternative survival opportunities and within the restraints imposed by food insecurity, poverty, abuse in the home, and parental migration. COVID-19 and climate hazards exacerbated food insecurity and child marriage, while education may act as a modifier that reduces girls' risk of marriage. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploration of the associations between food insecurity and child marriage suggest that child marriage programming in humanitarian settings should be community-led and gender transformative to address the gender inequality that underpins child marriage and address the needs and priorities of adolescent girls. Further, programming must be responsive to the diverse risks and realities that adolescents face to address the intersecting levels of deprivation and elevate the capacities of adolescent girls, their families, and communities to prevent child marriage in food insecure settings.

Self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion.

BACKGROUND: The advent of medical abortion has improved access to safe abortion procedures. Medical abortion procedures involve either administering mifepristone followed by misoprostol or a misoprostol-only regimen. The drugs are commonly administered in the presence of clinicians, which is known as provider-administered medical abortion. In self-administered medical abortion, drugs are administered by the woman herself without the supervision of a healthcare provider during at least one stage of the drug protocol. Self-administration of medical abortion has the potential to provide women with control over the abortion process. In settings where there is a shortage of healthcare providers, self-administration may reduce the burden on the health system. However, it remains unclear whether self-administration of medical abortion is effective and safe. It is important to understand whether women can safely and effectively terminate their own pregnancies when having access to accurate and adequate information, high-quality drugs, and facility-based care in case of complications. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE in process and other non-indexed citations, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Google Scholar from inception to 10 July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies with a concurrent comparison group, using study designs that compared medical abortion by self-administered versus provider-administered methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and we performed a meta-analysis where appropriate using Review Manager 5. Our primary outcome was successful abortion (effectiveness), defined as complete uterine evacuation without the need for surgical intervention. Ongoing pregnancy (the presence of an intact gestational sac) was our secondary outcome measuring success or effectiveness. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with Chi2 tests and I2 statistics using a cut-off point of P < 0.10 to indicate statistical heterogeneity. Quality assessment of the data used the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies (two RCTs and 16 non-randomized studies (NRSs)) comprising 11,043 women undergoing early medical abortion (≤ 9 weeks gestation) in 10 countries. Sixteen studies took place in low-to-middle income resource settings and two studies were in high-resource settings. One NRS study received analgesics from a pharmaceutical company. Five NRSs and one RCT did not report on funding; nine NRSs received all or partial funding from an anonymous donor. Five NRSs and one RCT received funding from government agencies, private foundations, or non-profit bodies. The intervention in the evidence is predominantly from women taking mifepristone in the presence of a healthcare provider, and subsequently taking misoprostol without healthcare provider supervision (e.g. at home). There is no evidence of a difference in rates of successful abortions between self-administered and provider-administered groups: for two RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.01; 919 participants; moderate certainty of evidence. There is very low certainty of evidence from 16 NRSs: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01; 10,124 participants. For the outcome of ongoing pregnancy there may be little or no difference between the two groups: for one RCT: RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.02; 735 participants; low certainty of evidence; and very low certainty evidence for 11 NRSs: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.49; 6691 participants. We are uncertain whether there are any differences in complications requiring surgical intervention, since we found no RCTs and evidence from three NRSs was of very low certainty: for three NRSs: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.71; 2452 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that self-administering the second stage of early medical abortion procedures is as effective as provider-administered procedures for the outcome of abortion success. There may be no difference for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy, although the evidence for this is uncertain for this outcome. There is very low-certainty evidence for the risk of complications requiring surgical intervention. Data are limited by the scarcity of high-quality research study designs and the presence of risks of bias. This review provides insufficient evidence to determine the safety of self-administration when compared with administering medication in the presence of healthcare provider supervision. Future research should investigate the effectiveness and safety of self-administered medical abortion in the absence of healthcare provider supervision through the entirety of the medical abortion protocol (e.g. during administration of mifepristone or as part of a misoprostol-only regimen) and at later gestational ages (i.e. more than nine weeks). In the absence of any supervision from medical personnel, research is needed to understand how best to inform and support women who choose to self-administer, including when to seek clinical care.

Opportunities and challenges for the introduction of a new female condom among young adults in urban Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Expanding contraceptive method choices for sexually active youth is critical to prevent STIs/HIV and unintended pregnancies. However, preferences and decision making around contraception among young adults are not well understood. A new female condom (FC), the Woman's Condom (WC), features an improved design and is marketed as a premium product at a higher price point. We conducted a qualitative study to examine the underlying knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions around the FC generally, the WC specifically, and to explore the opportunities and challenges of introducing the WC to young adults in urban Zambia. METHODS: Thirty focus group discussions comprised of 245 men and women aged 18-24 years were facilitated by local moderators in Lusaka, Zambia between August and December 2016. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis using ATLAS.ti (Version 7.5.17). RESULTS: While interest in the newly launched WC was high, few participants recognized it, so discussion was framed around FCs more generally. The decision to use a FC is challenged by misconceptions regarding safety and correct use, cost, and women's limited power over decision making in relationships. Participants also reported low availability of the product. Several opportunities for FC uptake were discussed, including the perception that FCs provide better sensation during intercourse compared with male condoms, and women reported enthusiasm for the opportunity to be the partner responsible for contraception. Some women expressed interest in the WC in order to ensure it was not tampered with by their partner, a practice commonly reported by both genders that reflects high levels of mistrust. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the FC, including the new WC, has potential to increase gender equity by giving women a product they are comfortable buying and being able to control to ensure correct use; however, future programming should address high perceived cost of the WC and women's limited decision making power in relationships. Findings also highlight the need for interventions that include product demonstration and promote the WC as a method that provides better sensation during sex than male condoms. To increase voluntary uptake, the challenges identified here should be incorporated into future social marketing campaigns.

Addressing the needs of cisgender, heterosexual men and LGBTIQ+ survivors of sexual violence: a scoping review of service delivery and funding priorities among humanitarian organisations.

Sexual violence in humanitarian contexts is a global public health issue. Yet, evidence suggests that humanitarian organisations may not always be inclusive of cisgender, heterosexual men and LGBTIQ+ survivors in their responses. This scoping review examines the extent to which global organisations focusing on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) address the needs of cisgender, heterosexual men and LGBTIQ+ survivors in service delivery and funding priorities. We examined grey literature published from 2013-2023 on SGBV service delivery and funding priorities in humanitarian contexts. Forty-seven documents were included in the final analyses, which comprised content and thematic analyses. Many of the documents acknowledged cisgender, heterosexual men or LGBTIQ+ individuals as at-risk groups; however, there was a lack of comprehensive discussion of these groups. Documents on LGBTIQ+ individuals referred to the group as a monolith, making little distinction among the LGBTIQ+ experience and the need to tailor responses to meet intersectional needs. Documents on men emphasised their role as perpetrators and allies, while overlooking that they also experience sexual violence. Findings support the critical need to address gaps in humanitarian programme and donor priorities to better ensure inclusion of cisgender, heterosexual men and LGBTIQ+ individuals without ignoring the needs of women and girls.

Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home versus in the clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis in response to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Increased access to home-based medical abortion may offer women a convenient, safe and effective abortion method, reduce burdens on healthcare systems and support social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based medical abortion is defined as any abortion where mifepristone, misoprostol or both medications are taken at home. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) were conducted. We searched databases from inception to 10 July 2019 and 14 June 2020. Successful abortion was the main outcome of interest. Eligible studies were RCTs and NRSs studies with a concurrent comparison group comparing home versus clinic-based medical abortion. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. Estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess risk of bias by outcome and to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 6277 potentially eligible published studies. Nineteen studies (3 RCTs and 16 NRSs) were included with 11 576 women seeking abortion up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither the RCTs nor the NRS found any difference between home-based and clinic-based administration of medical abortion in having a successful abortion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, I2=52%, respectively). The certainty of the evidence for the 16 NRSs was downgraded from low to very low due to high risk of bias and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence for the three RCTs was downgraded from high to moderate by one level for high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Home-based medical abortion is effective, safe and acceptable to women. This evidence should be used to expand women's abortion options and ensure access to abortion for women during COVID-19 and beyond. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183171.