(with thanks to Clare Watts)
'The right to sexual and reproductive well-being forms a tenet of human rights. Yet, challenges to achieving equitable sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) persist, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). To understand the extent of the evidence on SRHR and inform decision-making, 3ie developed an evidence gap map (EGM). This EGM was commissioned by the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) with support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and Co-Impact to explore the state of the evidence base on SRHR and to inform upcoming impact evaluations. We invite you to join us for this webinar to discuss key findings from the EGM about existing evidence and evidence gaps regarding SRHR interventions in L&MICs.'
Register: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/8317110951213/WN_nbUdqJMqSVmao_...
SELECTED EXTRACTS
You can see the brief here:
https://3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/SRHR-EGM-brief_0.pdf
and the map itself here:
https://developmentevidence.3ieimpact.org/egm/sexual-reproductive-health...
'3ie Evidence Gap Maps are collections of evidence from IEs, SRs, and in some cases, qualitative studies for a given sector or policy issue, organized according to the types of programs evaluated and the outcomes measured. They include an interactive online visualization of the evidence base, displayed in a framework of relevant interventions and outcomes. They highlight a list of the evidence for that cell. The links for these studies lead to user-friendly summaries in 3ie’s Development Evidence Portal. Users can filter the evidence by type, confidence rating (for SRs), region, country, study design, and population. decision-makers target their resources to fill these important where there are sufficient IEs to support SRs and where more studies are needed. The maps help evidence gaps and avoid duplication. They also make existing research more accessible to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making.'
'To enable decisionmakers to access the most up-to-date information, we propose ‘living’ synthesis projects that keep this EGM current.'
'The interventions in our map reflect key SRHR priorities, including family planning, maternal and newborn care, sexual and reproductive health and choice, addressing gender-based violence, and access to information and essential services. We considered a range of outcomes related to knowledge and attitudes, behaviors, service use and quality, harmful practices, health, and policy environment.'
Table 1 shows 'Gaps in the SRHR evidence base and suggested areas of research'. It suggests research on Interventions should focus on 'Civil registration and vital statistics systems, supply chain and logistics activities, policy advocacy, social accountability, safe abortion services, and in-kind transfers Interventions related to SRHR priorities such as infertility and sexual function and satisfaction'.
COMMENT (NPW): I have minimal expertise in this area and have only been able to spend a few minutes with the resource. My observations/questions: The map is an excellent way of showing gaps in the published research, and signposting us to what is available. For example, the first column is titled Knowledge and awareness, divided into policy advocacy, policies and laws, healthcare financing schemes, civil registration, supply chain, social accountability, provider capacity building, mass and social media campaigns, social marketing, SRHR education, commuiity mobilisation and dialogue, maternal and newborn care, CHWs and several other categories.
The map seems to provide access to collections of citations of the research. I couldn't find evidence syntheses. It's not clear whether and how an Evidence Gap Map alone should prioritise of future research. My thinking is that it might highlight some areas for possible research, but that decisions on specific research should be based on a number of other factors, including a synthesis of the existing evidence.
I look forward to your observations and comments. If any HIFA members were involved in developing this resource, we look forward to your guidance.
Another question: Is this approach unique or is it being used in other areas of health? If the latter, what can be done to promote standardisation of approach?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org
