Effects of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health services access in the Asia-Pacific region: a qualitative study of expert and policymaker perspectives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems globally, with governments imposing strict distancing and movement restrictions. Little is known about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health (SRH). This study examined perceived effects of COVID-19 on SRH service provision and use in the Asia-Pacific region. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 28 purposively sampled SRH experts in 12 Asia-Pacific countries (e.g. United Nations, international and national non-governmental organisations, ministries of health, academia) between November 2020 and January 2021. We analysed data using the six-stage thematic analysis approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2019). Interviewees reported that COVID-19 mitigation measures, such as transport restrictions and those that decreased the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), reduced SRH service provision and use in most countries. SRH needs related to service barriers and gender-based violence increased. Systemic challenges included fragmented COVID-19 response plans and insufficient communication and collaboration, particularly between public and private sectors. SRH service-delivery challenges included COVID-19 response prioritisation, e.g. SRH staff task-shifting to COVID-19 screening and contact tracing, and lack of necessary supplies and equipment. Innovative SRH delivery responses included door-to-door antenatal care and family planning provision in the Philippines, online platforms for SRH education and outreach in Viet Nam, and increasing SRH service engagement through social media in Myanmar and Indonesia. To ensure continuation of SRH services during health emergencies, governments should earmark human and financial resources and prioritise frontline health-worker safety; work with communities and the private sector; and develop effective risk communications.

Health system evaluation in conflict-affected countries: a scoping review of approaches and methods.

INTRODUCTION: Strengthening health systems in conflict-affected settings has become increasingly professionalised. However, evaluation remains challenging and often insufficiently documented in the literature. Many, particularly small-scale health system evaluations, are conducted by government bodies or non-governmental organisations (NGO) with limited capacity to publish their experiences. It is essential to identify the existing literature and main findings as a baseline for future efforts to evaluate the capacity and resilience of conflict-affected health systems. We thus aimed to synthesise the scope of methodological approaches and methods used in the peer-reviewed literature on health system evaluation in conflict-affected settings. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's method and synthesised findings using the WHO health system 'building blocks' framework. RESULTS: We included 58 eligible sources of 2,355 screened, which included examination of health systems or components in 26 conflict-affected countries, primarily South Sudan and Afghanistan (7 sources each), Democratic Republic of the Congo (6), and Palestine (5). Most sources (86%) were led by foreign academic institutes and international donors and focused on health services delivery (78%), with qualitative designs predominating (53%). Theoretical or conceptual grounding was extremely limited and study designs were not generally complex, as many sources (43%) were NGO project evaluations for international donors and relied on simple and lower-cost methods. Sources were also limited in terms of geography (e.g., limited coverage of the Americas region), by component (e.g., preferences for specific components such as service delivery), gendered (e.g., limited participation of women), and colonised (e.g., limited authorship and research leadership from affected countries). CONCLUSION: The evaluation literature in conflict-affected settings remains limited in scope and content, favouring simplified study designs and methods, and including those components and projects implemented or funded internationally. Many identified challenges and limitations (e.g., limited innovation/contextualisation, poor engagement with local actors, gender and language biases) could be mitigated with more rigorous and systematic evaluation approaches.

Community engagement in health systems interventions and research in conflict-affected countries: a scoping review of approaches.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare research, planning, and delivery with minimal community engagement can result in financial wastage, failure to meet objectives, and frustration in the communities that programmes are designed to help. Engaging communities - individual service-users and user groups - in the planning, delivery, and assessment of healthcare initiatives from inception promotes transparency, accountability, and 'ownership'. Health systems affected by conflict must try to ensure that interventions engage communities and do not exacerbate existing problems. Engaging communities in interventions and research on conflict-affected health systems is essential to begin addressing effects on service delivery and access. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and interrogate the literature on community engagement in health system interventions and research in conflict-affected settings. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using Arksey & O'Malley's framework, synthesising the data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 19 of 2,355 potential sources identified. Each discussed at least one aspect of community engagement, predominantly participatory methods, in 12 conflict-affected countries. Major lessons included the importance of engaging community and religious leaders, as well as people of lower socioeconomic status, in both designing and delivering culturally acceptable healthcare; mobilising community members and involving them in programme delivery to increase acceptability; mediating between governments, armed groups and other organisations to increase the ability of healthcare providers to remain in post; giving community members spaces for feedback on healthcare provision, to provide communities with evidence that programmes and initiatives are working. CONCLUSION: Community engagement in identifying and setting priorities, decision-making, implementing, and evaluating potential solutions helps people share their views and encourages a sense of ownership and increases the likely success of healthcare interventions. However, engaging communities can be particularly difficult in conflict-affected settings, where priorities may not be easy to identify, and many other factors, such as safety, power relations, and entrenched inequalities, must be considered.

Operationalising Regional Cooperation for Infectious Disease Control: A Scoping Review of Regional Disease Control Bodies and Networks.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the value of regional cooperation in infectious disease prevention and control. We explored the literature on regional infectious disease control bodies, to identify lessons, barriers and enablers to inform operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body or network in southeast Asia. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine existing literature on regional infectious disease control bodies and networks, and to identify lessons that can be learned that will be useful for operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Center for Public Health Emergency and Emerging Diseases. RESULTS: Of the 57 articles included, 53 (93%) were in English, with two (3%) in Spanish and one (2%) each in Dutch and French. Most were commentaries or review articles describing programme initiatives. Sixteen (28%) publications focused on organisations in the Asian continent, with 14 (25%) focused on Africa, and 14 (25%) primarily focused on the European region. Key lessons focused on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability. Enablers and constraints were consistent across regions/ organisations. A clear understanding of the regional context, budgets, cultural or language issues, staffing capacity and governmental priorities, is pivotal. An initial workshop inclusive of the various bodies involved in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of programmes is essential. Clear governance structure, with individual responsibilities clear from the beginning, will reduce friction. Secure, long-term funding is also a key aspect of the success of any programme. CONCLUSION: Operationalisation of regional infectious disease bodies and networks is complicated, but with extensive groundwork, and focus on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability, it is achievable. Ways to promote success are to include as many stakeholders as possible from the beginning, to ensure that context-specific factors are considered, and to encourage employees through capacity building and mentoring, to ensure they feel valued and reduce staff turnover.