Background: The provision of safe abortion services upholds the realization of justice in sexual and reproductive health. Many state-level studies in India have identified poor availability of abortion services in the public sector and negative attitudes toward abortion among health providers, as potential barriers to access. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was done to document the availability and utilization of medical termination of pregnancy (MTP or abortion) services and to assess public sector health providers' attitudes towards safe abortion. It was carried out in a representative district of West Bengal, using a facility checklist and a validated attitude scale. Results: Only 11 of 42 public health facilities had both trained doctors and equipment to provide MTP services. Twelve facilities provided MTP services, of which only three urban-based secondary-level facilities provided second trimester MTPs. There were female providers in just 2 of the 12 MTP-providing facilities. Among the 64 health providers interviewed, 40% were trained to provide MTP. According to the attitude scale, 38% had a negative attitude toward the provision of safe abortion services. There was no statistically significant association between attitudes of health providers and provision of MTP. However, there appeared to be a subtle process of gatekeeping in operation, such as making MTP conditional on acceptance of contraception, requiring the husband's consent, and so on. Conclusions: The study shows the poor availability of abortion services in public sector facilities in a district of West Bengal, although all public health facilities from the primary health center level upwards are authorized to provide abortion services.
In 2017, the State of Kerala in India, launched the 'Aardram' mission for health. One of the aims of the mission was to enhance the primary health care (PHC) provisioning in the state through the family health centre (FHC) initiative. This was envisaged through a comprehensive PHC approach that prioritized preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative services, and social determinants of health. Given this backdrop, the study aimed to examine the renewed policy commitment towards comprehensive PHC and the extent to which it remains true to the globally accepted ideals of PHC. This was undertaken using a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the policy discourse on PHC. This included examining the policy documents related to FHC and Aardram as well as the narratives of policy-level actors on PHC and innovations for them. Through CDA we examined the discursive representation of PHC and innovations for improving it at the level of local governments in the state. Though the mission envisaged a shift from the influence of market-driven ideas of health, analysis of the current policy discourse on PHC suggested otherwise. The discourse continues to carry a curative care bias within its ideas of PHC. The disproportionate emphasis on strategies for early detection, treatment and infrastructural improvements meant limited space for preventive, protective and promotive dimensions, thus digressing from the gatekeeping role of PHC. The reduced emphasis on preventive and promotive dimensions and depoliticization of social determinants of health within the PHC discourse indicates that, in the long run, the mission puts at risk its stated goals of social justice and health equity envisioned in the FHC initiative.
If universal health coverage (UHC) cannot be achieved without the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of the population being met, what then is the current situation vis-à-vis universal coverage of SRH services, and the extent to which SRH services have been prioritised in national UHC plans and processes? This was the central question that guided this critical review of more than 200 publications between 2010 and 2019. The findings are the following. The Essential Package of Healthcare Services (EPHS) across many countries excludes several critical SRH services (e.g. safe abortion services, reproductive cancers) that are already poorly available. Inadequate international and domestic public funding of SRH services contributes to a sustained burden of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and inequities in access to SRH services. Policy and legal barriers, restrictive gender norms and gender-based inequalities challenge the delivery and access to quality SRH services. The evidence is mixed as to whether an expanded role and scope of the private sector improves availability and access to services of underserved populations. As momentum gathers towards SRH and UHC, the following actions are necessary and urgent. Advocacy for greater priority for SRH in government EPHS and health budgets aligned with SRH and UHC goals is needed. Implementation of stable and sustained financing mechanisms that would reduce the proportion of SRH-financing from OOPE is a priority. Evidence, moving from descriptive towards explanatory studies which provide insights into the "hows" and "whys" of processes and pathways are essential for guiding policy and programme actions.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is not one that is taken lightly. The need for an abortion reflects limited sexual autonomy, ineffective or lack of access to contraceptive options, or a health indication. Abortion is protected under human rights law. That notwithstanding, access to abortions continues to be contested in many parts of the world, with vested interests from politically and religiously conservative states, patriarchal societies, and cultural mores, not just within local contexts but also within a broader geopolitical context. Criminalization of a women's choice not to carry a pregnancy is a significant driver of unsafe procedures, and even where abortions are provided legally, the policies remain constrained by the practice or by a lack of coherence. This review outlines the trends in abortion policy in low- and middle-income countries and highlights priority areas to ensure that women are safe and able to exercise their reproductive rights.
While the United Nations has long implemented strategies to tackle deep-rooted gender-based inequalities and discrimination in its programmes and policies, there is limited evidence on successful strategies to foster institutional structures and practices that promote gender equality or institutional gender mainstreaming. This paper explores and analyses the experience of institutional gender mainstreaming within UN Agencies working on global health, highlighting potential areas for learning. Overall, progress on institutional gender mainstreaming has been modest, with slow increases (if any) in investments in financial and human resources. The findings highlight the importance of well-established strategies, such as enforcing accountability, a robust gender architecture, and a cohesive capacity-building policy. Drawing on the experiences of gender experts, the paper shows that equally or more critical to the success of institutional gender mainstreaming were approaches such as leveraging strategic internal and external support and identifying strategic entry points for gender mainstreaming. There is considerable scope for strengthening gender mainstreaming within UN Agencies by reviewing and learning from UN system successes. In addition to learning from practice, the way forward lies in making visible and developing strategies to challenge embedded patriarchal organisational norms and systems.
BACKGROUND: Despite the rising burden of musculoskeletal (MSK) problems (MSK conditions, MSK pain, and MSK injury and trauma) in most countries, actions to improve (strengthen) systems for supporting MSK health are often low on the priority list, relative to other noncommunicable diseases. Delivering effective, person-centered and equitable MSK health care requires strengthening systems for health, for example, through policy, financing, service delivery, and workforce initiatives. A critical, but often overlooked component is genuine integration of lived experience perspectives to cocreate care and systems that are responsive to people's needs and contexts. CLINICAL QUESTION: How can cocreation approaches support effective, person-centered and equitable MSK health care? What principles can stakeholders adopt to build responsive health systems? KEY RESULTS: Lived experience perspectives are not systematically integrated in initiatives to strengthen health systems. However, such integration is critical to creating equitable and person-centered health systems that provide care and support healthy populations. Cocreation principles and frameworks can guide processes to strengthen health systems, which must include historically marginalized groups and consider social and environmental contexts as they relate to health. CLINICAL APPLICATION: Clinicians, educators, and policy-makers play a critical role in creating equitable health systems and environments, and driving system reform with people who have lived experience. Genuine cocreation approaches capture diverse economic development (in particular, low-resource settings where health inequities are more prevalent), span the life course and diagnostic categories, are appropriate and/or adapted for the context and setting, and reflect evolving standards and opportunities for MSK health. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(4):1-10. Epub: 12 December 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11427.