Which Structural Interventions for Adolescent Contraceptive Use Have Been Evaluated in Low- and Middle-Income Countries?

Reducing adolescent childbearing is a global priority, and enabling contraceptive use is one means of achieving this. Upstream factors, e.g., gender inequalities, fertility norms, poverty, empowerment and schooling, can be major factors affecting contraceptive use. We conducted a systematic map to understand which structural adolescent contraception interventions targeting these upstream factors have been evaluated in LMICs. We searched eight academic databases plus relevant websites and a 2016 evidence gap map and screened references based on set inclusion criteria. We screened 6993 references and included 40 unique intervention evaluations, reported in 138 papers. Seventeen evaluations were reported only in grey literature. Poverty reduction/economic empowerment interventions were the most common structural intervention, followed by interventions to increase schooling (e.g., through legislation or cash transfers) and those aiming to change social norms. Half of the evaluations were RCTs. There was variation in the timing of endline outcome data collection and the outcome measures used. A range of structural interventions have been evaluated for their effect on adolescent contraceptive use/pregnancy. These interventions, and their evaluations, are heterogenous in numerous ways. Improved understandings of how structural interventions work, as well as addressing evaluation challenges, are needed to facilitate progress in enabling adolescent contraceptive use in LMICs.

Assessing the applicability of public health intervention evaluations from one setting to another: a methodological study of the usability and usefulness of assessment tools and frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Public health interventions can be complicated, complex and context dependent, making the assessment of applicability challenging. Nevertheless, for them to be of use beyond the original study setting, they need to be generalisable to other settings and, crucially, research users need to be able to identify to which contexts it may be applicable. There are many tools with set criteria for assessing generalisability/applicability, yet few seem to be widely used and there is no consensus on which should be used, or when. This methodological study aimed to test these tools to assess how easy they were to use and how useful they appeared to be. METHODS: We identified tools from an existing review and an update of its search. References were screened on pre-specified criteria. Included tools were tested by using them to assess the applicability of a Swedish weight management intervention to the English context. Researcher assessments and reflections on the usability and utility of the tools were gathered using a standard pro-forma. RESULTS: Eleven tools were included. Their length, content, style and time required to complete varied. No tool was considered ideal for assessing applicability. Their limitations included unrealistic criteria (requiring unavailable information), a focus on implementation to the neglect of transferability (i.e. little focus on potential effectiveness in the new setting), overly broad criteria (associated with low reliability), and a lack of an explicit focus on how interventions worked (i.e. their mechanisms of action). CONCLUSION: Tools presenting criteria ready to be used may not be the best method for applicability assessments. They are likely to be either too long or incomplete, too focused on differences and fail to address elements that matter for the specific topic of interest. It is time to progress from developing lists of set criteria that are not widely used in the literature, to creating a new approach to applicability assessment. Focusing on mechanisms of action, rather than solely on characteristics, could be a useful approach, and one that remains underutilised in current tools. New approaches to assessing generalisability that evolve away from checklist style assessments need to be developed, tested, reported and discussed.

Meningococcal vaccine introduction in Mali through mass campaigns and its impact on the health system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the meningococcal A (MenA) vaccine introduction in Mali through mass campaigns on the routine immunization program and the wider health system. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods case-study design, combining semi-structured interviews with 31 key informants, a survey among 18 health facilities, and analysis of routine health facility data on number of routine vaccinations and antenatal consultations before, during, and after the MenA vaccine campaign in December 2010. Survey and interview data were collected at the national level and in 2 regions in July and August 2011, with additional interviews in January 2012. FINDINGS: Many health system functions were not affected-either positively or negatively-by the MenA vaccine introduction. The majority of effects were felt on the immunization program. Benefits included strengthened communication and social mobilization, surveillance, and provider skills. Drawbacks included the interruption of routine vaccination services in the majority of health facilities surveyed (67%). The average daily number of children receiving routine vaccinations was 79% to 87% lower during the 10-day campaign period than during other periods of the month. Antenatal care consultations were also reduced during the campaign period by 10% to 15%. Key informants argued that, with an average of 14 campaigns per year, mass campaigns would have a substantial cumulative negative effect on routine health services. Many also argued that the MenA campaign missed potential opportunities for health systems strengthening because integration with other health services was lacking. CONCLUSION: The MenA vaccine introduction interrupted routine vaccination and other health services. When introducing a new vaccine through a campaign, coverage of routine health services should be monitored alongside campaign vaccine coverage to highlight where and how long services are disrupted and to mitigate risks to routine services.