Getting ready for reduced donor dependency: the co-financing of family planning commodities.

Family planning (FP) programmes in low and lower-middle income countries are confronting the dual impact of reduced external donor commitments and stagnant or reduced domestic financing, worsened by economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Co-financing-a donor-government agreement to jointly fund aspects of a programme, with transition towards the government assuming increasing responsibility for total cost-can be a powerful tool to help build national ownership, fiscal sustainability and programme visibility. Using Gavi's successful co-financing model as reference, the current paper draws out a set of key considerations for developing policies on co-financing of FP commodities in resource-poor settings. Macroeconomic and contextual sensitivities must be incorporated while classifying countries and determining co-financing obligations-using the actual GNI per capita on a scale or sovereign credit ratings, in conjunction with programmatic indicators, may be preferred. It is also important for policies to allow sufficiently long time for countries to transition-dependent on the country context, may be up to 10 years as allowed under the US Agency for International Development FP graduation policy and flexibility to revisit the terms following externalities that can influence the fiscal space for health. Incentivizing new domestic financing to pay for co-financing dues is critical, so as not to displace government funding from related health or social sector programs. Pragmatic ways to ensure country compliance can include engaging both the ministries of health and finance as co-signatories to identify and address known administrative and fiscal challenges; establishing dedicated co-financing account with the finance ministry; and instituting a mutual monitoring mechanism. Lastly, the overall process of policymaking can benefit from an alignment of goals and interests of the key development partners.

The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the differential effects of face-to-face interviewing and audio-computer assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI) on categories of questions. METHODS: Syringe exchange program participants (n = 1417) completed face-to-face interviews or audio-CASI. The questionnaire was categorized into the groups "stigmatized behaviors," "neutral behaviors," and "psychological distress." Interview modes were compared for questions from each category. RESULTS: Audio-CASI elicited more frequent reporting of "stigmatized behaviors" than face-to-face interviews. Face-to-face interviewing elicited more frequent reporting of "psychological distress" than audio-CASI. CONCLUSIONS: Responding to potentially sensitive questions should not be seen as merely "providing data," but rather as an activity with complex motivations. These motivations can include maintaining social respect, obtaining social support, and altruism. Ideally, procedures for collecting self-report data would maximize altruistic motivation while accommodating the other motives.