Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-related handwashing behaviours: A systematic review.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to handwashing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached.We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 56 studies were included in this review. The included studies were cross sectional in design, came from 22 countries and had a combined sample of 199,376 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with eight of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of the majority of the studies was good (n = 30 rated low risk of bias), with 8 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Thirty-four studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 28 in the meta-analysis.Findings indicated that emotions about COVID-19 (worry [0.381, confidence interval [CI] = 0.270-0.482, I 2 = 92%) and anxiety (0.308, CI = 0.154-0.448, I 2 = 91%]), knowledge of COVID-19 (0.323, CI = 0.223-0.417, I 2 = 94%), and perceived social norms (0.303, CI = 0.184-0.413, I 2 = 92%) were among the malleable determinants most associated with handwashing. Perceived severity (0.006, CI = -0.011-0.023) and susceptibility of COVID-19 (0.041, CI = -0.034 to 0.115) had little to no effect on handwashing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID-related handwashing can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote handwashing behaviour in potential new waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Emotions about COVID, knowledge of COVID and perceived social norms warrant further consideration in future research and policy.

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related face covering behaviours: A systematic review.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering. Objectives: We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19. Search Methods: We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria: Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis: All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies. Main Results: Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross-sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta-analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID-19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, I 2 = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID-19 (r = 0.088, 95% CI = -0.004, 0.180, I 2 = 80%) and COVID-related worry and anxiety (r = 0.064, 95% CI = -0.066, 0.191, I 2 = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions: Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID-related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy.

UPDATED PROTOCOL: Universal school-based programmes for improving social and emotional outcomes in children aged 3-11 years: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objective of this EGM is to identify and map all primary studies (including randomised and cluster randomised trials) and systematic reviews on universal, school-based social and emotional learning programmes for young children (3-11 years) to create a live, searchable, and publicly available evidence and gap map.

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours. Objectives: We aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19. Search Methods: Our extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre-prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non-malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not). Selection Criteria: This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human-to-human spread of COVID-19. All potential malleable and non-malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: 'behaviour', 'cognition', 'demographics', 'disease', 'emotions', 'health status', 'information', 'intervention', and 'knowledge'. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as 'other' determinants. Data Collection and Analysis: Results were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR-2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map. Main Results: As of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross-sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed-methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T-zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was 'demographics' (n = 730 studies), followed by 'cognition' (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as 'other' (n = 447). These included factors such as 'beliefs', 'culture' and 'access to resources'. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as 'interventions' (n = 99 studies), 'information' (n = 101 studies), and 'behaviour' (149 studies). Authors' Conclusions: This EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy-makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID-19 health-related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

Involving men and boys in family planning: A systematic review of the effective components and characteristics of complex interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Involving men and boys as both users and supporters of Family Planning (FP) is now considered essential for optimising maternal and child health outcomes. Evidence on how to engage men and boys to meet FP needs is therefore important. Objectives: The main objective of this review was to assess the strength of evidence in the area and uncover the effective components and critical process- and system-level characteristics of successful interventions. Search Methods: We searched nine electronic databases, seven grey literature databases, organisational websites, and the reference lists of systematic reviews relating to FP. To identify process evaluations and qualitative papers associated with the included experimental studies, we used Connected Papers and hand searches of reference lists. Selection Criteria: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of behavioural and service-level interventions involving males aged 10 years or over in low- and middle-income countries to increase uptake of FP methods were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis: Methodology was a causal chain analysis involving the development and testing of a logic model of intervention components based on stakeholder consultation and prior research. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to the evaluation studies and interventions were extracted based on the principles of 'effectiveness-plus' reviews. Quantitative analysis was undertaken using r with robust variance estimation (RVE), meta-analysis and meta-regression. Qualitative analysis involved 'best fit' framework synthesis. Results: We identified 8885 potentially relevant records and included 127 in the review. Fifty-nine (46%) of these were randomised trials, the remainder were quasi-experimental studies with a comparison group. Fifty-four percent of the included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias. A meta-analysis of 72 studies (k = 265) showed that the included group of interventions had statistically significantly higher odds of improving contraceptive use when compared to comparison groups (odds ratio = 1.38, confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.57, prediction interval = 0.36 to 5.31, p < 0.0001), but there were substantial variations in the effect sizes of the studies (Q = 40,647, df = 264, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 98%) and 73% was within cluster/study. Multi-variate meta-regression revealed several significant intervention delivery characteristics that moderate contraceptive use. These included community-based educational FP interventions, interventions delivered to women as well as men and interventions delivered by trained facilitators, professionals, or peers in community, home and community, or school settings. None of the eight identified intervention components or 33 combinations of components were significant moderators of effects on contraceptive use. Qualitative analysis highlighted some of the barriers and facilitators of effective models of FP that should be considered in future practice and research. Authors' Conclusions: FP interventions that involve men and boys alongside women and girls are effective in improving uptake and use of contraceptives. The evidence suggests that policy should continue to promote the involvement of men and boys in FP in ways that also promote gender equality. Recommendations for research include the need for evaluations during conflict and disease outbreaks, and evaluation of gender transformative interventions which engage men and boys as contraceptive users and supporters in helping to achieve desired family size, fertility promotion, safe conception, as well as promoting equitable family planning decision-making for women and girls.

PROTOCOL: Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): A suite of systematic reviews and an evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: we intend to identify and synthesise the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours that can reduce the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.

Determinants of health behaviours intended to prevent spread of respiratory pathogens that have pandemic potential: A rapid review.

Effective public health messages to encourage behaviours to reduce the spread of COVID-19 should be informed by existing research that identifies the factors that are associated with these preventive behaviours. This rapid review summarises the existing research on the determinants of behaviours that aim to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The review focuses on the body of research (excluding research conducted with health care workers) that was produced in the context of viruses other than SARS CoV-2 that cause severe respiratory illness and are transmitted in a similar way. A total of 58 published peer-reviewed studies included in the review were identified through searches of Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Most were conducted in the context of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in 2009. Most studies examined the determinants of wearing a face covering, handwashing and social or physical distancing. The findings suggest that public health messages to encourage preventive behaviours should emphasise the potential seriousness of COVID-19 to elicit appropriate concern, strengthen perceptions of risk or threat from COVID-19, enhance self-efficacy about preventive behaviours, and improve knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, how it is transmitted, and how preventive behaviours can reduce the risk of transmission.

Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the need for interventions that effectively involve men and boys to promote family planning behaviours. Evidence suggests that the most effective behavioural interventions in this field are founded on theoretical principles of behaviour change and gender equality. However, there are few evidence syntheses on how theoretical approaches are applied in this context that might guide best practice in intervention development. This review addresses this gap by examining the application and reporting of theories of behaviour change used by family planning interventions involving men and boys. METHODS: We adopted a systematic rapid review approach, scoping findings of a previously reported evidence and gap map of intervention reviews (covering 2007-2018) and supplementing this with searches of academic databases and grey literature for reviews and additional studies published between 2007 and 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if their title, abstract or keywords referred to a psychosocial or behavioural intervention targeting family planning behaviours, involved males in delivery, and detailed their use of an intervention theory of change. RESULTS: From 941 non-duplicate records identified, 63 were eligible for inclusion. Most records referenced interventions taking place in low- and middle-income countries (65%). There was a range of intervention theories of change reported, typically targeting individual-level behaviours and sometimes comprising several behaviour change theories and strategies. The most commonly identified theories were Social Cognitive Theory, Social Learning Theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Information-Motivation-Behaviour Skills (IMB) Model. A minority of records explicitly detailed gender-informed elements within their theory of change. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the range of prevailing theories of change used for family planning interventions involving men and boys, and the considerable variability in their reporting. Programmers and policy makers would be best served by unified reporting and testing of intervention theories of change. There remains a need for consistent reporting of these to better understand how complex interventions that seek to involve men and boys in family planning may lead to behaviour change.

Family planning (FP) programmes aim to enable people to achieve their desired family size. Successful programmes are essential for encouraging better health outcomes for individuals and families. Historically, FP programmes have focused on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls, and while this is necessary, it has also contributed to the exclusion of men and boys from FP programmes. There is growing evidence to suggest, however, that involving men and boys in FP may increase its uptake and improve health outcomes for all. However, we still know relatively little about the best ways to involve men and boys in FP programmes in order to ensure success. Research is ongoing to rectify this.When we look at public health behaviour change programmes in general, we find that many successful programmes incorporate theories of behaviour change into their design. These theories guide the kinds of activities and materials that the programme employs in order to promote behaviour change. In the field of FP, there is little information about the kinds of behaviour change theories that might be used to design programmes. This review aimed to address this by reviewing the global literature on FP programmes that involved men and boys to identify relevant behaviour-change theories. We found a range of theories that will be of use to programme planners. We also found, however, that there was lots of variability in the way theories were reported. We make recommendations for how this problem might be resolved.

Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.

Background: Globally, almost 1.6 billion individuals lack adequate housing. Many accommodation-based approaches have evolved across the globe to incorporate additional support and services beyond delivery of housing. Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of accommodation-based approaches on outcomes including housing stability, health, employment, crime, wellbeing, and cost for individuals experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Search Methods: The systematic review is based on evidence already identified in two existing EGMs commissioned by the Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI) and built by White et al. The maps were constructed using a comprehensive three stage search and mapping process. Stage one mapped included studies in an existing systematic review on homelessness, stage two was an extensive search of 17 academic databases, three EGM databases, and eight systematic review databases. Finally stage three included web searches for grey literature, scanning reference lists of included studies and consultation with experts to identify additional literature. We identified 223 unique studies across 551 articles from the effectiveness map on 12th April 2019. Selection Criteria: We include research on all individuals currently experiencing, or at risk of experiencing homelessness irrespective of age or gender, in high-income countries. The Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) contains all study designs where a comparison group was used. This includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, matched comparisons and other study designs that attempt to isolate the impact of the intervention on homelessness. The NMA primarily addresses how interventions can reduce homelessness and increase housing stability for those individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Additional outcomes are examined and narratively described. These include: access to mainstream healthcare; crime and justice; employment and income; capabilities and wellbeing; and cost of intervention. These outcomes reflect the domains used in the EGM, with the addition of cost. Data Collection and Analysis: Due to the diverse nature of the literature on accommodation-based approaches, the way in which the approaches are implemented in practice, and the disordered descriptions of the categories, the review team created a novel typology to allow meaningful categorisations for functional and useful comparison between the various intervention types. Once these eligible categories were identified, we undertook dual data extraction, where two authors completed data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessments independently for each study. NMA was conducted across outcomes related to housing stability and health.Qualitative data from process evaluations is included using a "Best Fit" Framework synthesis. The purpose of this synthesis is to complement the quantitative evidence and provide a better understanding of what factors influenced programme effectiveness. All included Qualitative data followed the initial framework provided by the five main analytical categories of factors of influence (reflected in the EGM), namely: contextual factors, policy makers/funders, programme administrators/managers/implementing agencies, staff/case workers and recipients of the programme. Main Results: There was a total of 13,128 people included in the review, across 51 reports of 28 studies. Most of the included studies were carried out in the United States of America (25/28), with other locations including Canada and the UK. Sixteen studies were RCTs (57%) and 12 were nonrandomised (quasi-experimental) designs (43%). Assessment of methodological quality and potential for bias was conducted using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised controlled trials. Nonrandomised studies were coded using the ROBINS- I tool. Out of the 28 studies, three had sufficiently low ROB (11%), 11 (39%) had moderate ROB, and five (18%) presented serious problems with ROB, and nine (32%) demonstrated high, critical problems with their methodology. A NMA on housing stability outcomes demonstrates that interventions offering the highest levels of support alongside unconditional accommodation (High/Unconditional) were more effective in improving housing stability compared to basic support alongside unconditional housing (Basic/Unconditional) (ES=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.39, 1.82]), and in comparison to a no-intervention control group (ES=0.62, 95% CI [0.19, 1.06]). A second NMA on health outcomes demonstrates that interventions categorised as offering Moderate/Conditional (ES= 0.36, 95% CI [0.03, 0.69]) and High/Unconditional (ES = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43]) support were effective in improving health outcomes compared to no intervention. These effects were smaller than those observed for housing stability. The quality of the evidence was relatively low but varied across the 28 included studies. Depending on the context, finding accommodation for those who need it can be hindered by supply and affordability in the market. The social welfare approach in each jurisdiction can impact heavily on support available and can influence some of the prejudice and stigma surrounding homelessness. The evaluations emphasised the need for collaboration and a shared commitment between policymakers, funders and practitioners which creates community and buy in across sectors and agencies. However, co-ordinating this is difficult and requires sustainability to work. For those implementing programmes, it was important to invest time in developing a culture together to build trust and solid relationships. Additionally, identifying sufficient resources and appropriate referral routes allows for better implementation planning. Involving staff and case workers in creating processes helps drive enthusiasm and energy for the service. Time should be allocated for staff to develop key skills and communicate engage effectively with service users. Finally, staff need time to develop trust and relationships with service users; this goes hand in hand with providing information that is up to date and useful as well making themselves accessible in terms of location and time. Authors' Conclusions: The network meta-analysis suggests that all types of accommodation which provided support are more effective than no intervention or Basic/Unconditional accommodation in terms of housing stability and health. The qualitative evidence synthesis raised a primary issue in relation to context: which was the lack of stable, affordable accommodation and the variability in the rental market, such that actually sourcing accommodation to provide for individuals who are homeless is extremely challenging. Collaboration between stakeholders and practitioners can be fruitful but difficult to coordinate across different agencies and organisations.

Gender-transformative programming with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights: a systematic review of intervention studies.

BACKGROUND: Global health organisations advocate gender-transformative programming (which challenges gender inequalities) with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for all. We systematically review evidence for this approach. METHODS: We previously reported an evidence-and-gap map (http://srhr.org/masculinities/wbincome/) and systematic review of reviews of experimental intervention studies engaging men/boys in SRHR, identified through a Campbell Collaboration published protocol (https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.203) without language restrictions between January 2007 and July 2018. Records for the current review of intervention studies were retrieved from those systematic reviews containing one or more gender-transformative intervention studies engaging men/boys. Data were extracted for intervention studies relating to each of the World Health Organization (WHO) SRHR outcomes. Promising programming characteristics, as well as underused strategies, were analysed with reference to the WHO definition of gender-transformative programming and an established behaviour change model, the COM-B model. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, RoB V.2.0 and Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions. FINDINGS: From 509 eligible records, we synthesised 68 studies comprising 36 randomised controlled trials, n=56 417 participants, and 32 quasi-experimental studies, n=25 554 participants. Promising programming characteristics include: multicomponent activities of education, persuasion, modelling and enablement; multilevel programming that mobilises wider communities; targeting both men and women; and programmes of longer duration than three months. Six of the seven interventions evaluated more than once show efficacy. However, we identified a significant risk of bias in the overall available evidence. Important gaps in evidence relate to safe abortion and SRHR during disease outbreaks. CONCLUSION: It is widely acknowledged by global organisations that the question is no longer whether to include boys and men in SRHR but how to do so in ways that promote gender equality and health for all and are scientifically rigorous. This paper provides an evidence base to take this agenda for programming and research forward.

Interventions addressing men, masculinities and gender equality in sexual and reproductive health and rights: an evidence and gap map and systematic review of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Working with men/boys, in addition to women/girls, through gender-transformative programming that challenges gender inequalities is recognised as important for improving sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for all. The aim of this paper was to generate an interactive evidence and gap map (EGM) of the total review evidence on interventions engaging men/boys across the full range of WHO SRHR outcomes and report a systematic review of the quantity, quality and effect of gender-transformative interventions with men/boys to improve SRHR for all. METHODS: For this EGM and systematic review, academic and non-academic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index-expanded, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, Embase, Global Health Library and Scopus) were searched using terms related to SRHR, males/masculinities, systematic reviews and trials (January 2007-July 2018) with no language restrictions for review articles of SRHR interventions engaging men/boys. Data were extracted from included reviews, and AMSTAR2 was used to assess quality. Outcomes were based on WHO reproductive health strategy. RESULTS: From the 3658 non-duplicate records screened, the total systematic reviews of interventions engaging men/boys in SRHR was mapped through an EGM (n=462 reviews) showing that such interventions were relatively evenly spread across low-income (24.5%), middle-income (37.8%) and high-income countries (37.8%). The proportion of reviews that included gender-transformative interventions engaging men/boys was low (8.4%, 39/462), the majority was in relation to violence against women/girls (n=18/39, 46.2%) and conducted in lower and middle-income countries (n=25/39, 64%). Reviews of gender-transformative interventions were generally low/critically low quality (n=34/39, 97.1%), and findings inconclusive (n=23/39, 59%), but 38.5% (n=15/39) found positive results. CONCLUSION: Research and programming must be strengthened in engagement of men/boys; it should be intentional in promoting a gender-transformative approach, explicit in the intervention logic models, with more robust experimental designs and measures, and supported with qualitative evaluations.

The association between child maltreatment and adult poverty - A systematic review of longitudinal research.

Child maltreatment is a global problem affecting millions of children and is associated with an array of cumulative negative outcomes later in life, including unemployment and financial difficulties. Although establishing child maltreatment as a causal mechanism for adult economic outcomes is fraught with difficulty, understanding the relationship between the two is essential to reducing such inequality. This paper presents findings from a systematic review of longitudinal research examining experiences of child maltreatment and economic outcomes in adulthood. A systematic search of seven databases found twelve eligible retrospective and prospective cohort studies. From the available evidence, there was a relatively clear relationship between 'child maltreatment' and poorer economic outcomes such as reduced income, unemployment, lower level of job skill and fewer assets, over and above the influence of family of origin socio-economic status. Despite an extremely limited evidence base, neglect had a consistent relationship with a number of long-term economic outcomes, while physical abuse has a more consistent relationship with income and employment. Studies examining sexual abuse found less of an association with income and employment, although they did find a relationship other outcomes such as sickness absence, assets, welfare receipt and financial insecurity. Nonetheless, all twelve studies showed some association between at least one maltreatment type and at least one economic measure. The task for future research is to clarify the relationship between specific maltreatment types and specific economic outcomes, taking account of how this may be influenced by gender and life course stage.