Today's evidence, tomorrow's agenda: Implementation of strategies to improve global reproductive health
Abstract
The Alliance for Women's Health deliberated on critical gaps and emerging issues related to women's health, focusing on contraception, safe abortion care, HIV, and cervical cancer prevention. Despite the health, socioeconomic, and development benefits of family planning, up to 222 million women have an unmet need for modern contraception. The number of unsafe abortions increased globally, 98% of which occurred in low‐resource countries. Fragmentation of services for HIV and cervical cancer prevention and treatment fail to maximize opportunities to reach women within reproductive, maternal, and child health services. The FIGO 2012 PreCongress Workshop elaborated the role of societies of obstetricians‐gynecologists in implementation of actions to increase access to modern methods of contraception to help individuals meet family planning intentions. Human rights principles underpin the imperative to ensure equitable access to a wide range of modern methods of contraception. The role of task shifting/sharing in different models of service delivery was elaborated. Actions from the International Conference on Population and Development on safe abortion care and integration of effective contraception were reaffirmed. A call was made to increase access to integrated HIV and cervical cancer prevention, screening, and management. Cross‐cutting strategic approaches to accelerate progress include evidence‐based information to stakeholders and continued education in these areas at all levels of training. A call was made to advocate for a budget line item for sexual and reproductive health, including family planning and engaging the demand side of family planning, while involving men to enhance uptake and continuation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Husbands were noted to both positively and negatively impact LAC uptake.
“This theme emerged from the IDIs, where husbands were noted to both positively and negatively impact LAC uptake [38].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Mbizvo, M. T., Chou, D., & Shaw, D.
- Affiliations
- World Health Organization (CH)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Mbizvo, Michael Takura
- Venue
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-13
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- S3-8
- ISSN
- 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
- 0020-7292
- 1879-3479
- OpenAlex
- W2101873236
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- United States Agency for International Development
- World Health Organization
- Ipas
- IPPF
- UNAIDS
- FIGO
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Keywords
- reproductive health, family planning, unmet need for contraception, modern contraceptive methods, safe abortion care, HIV prevention, cervical cancer prevention, cervical cancer screening, task shifting, human rights, service integration, men's involvement in family planning
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Induced, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Contraception, Female, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Male, HIV Infections, Reproductive Health Services, Internationality, Reproductive Health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review