The reach and impact of social marketing and reproductive health communication campaigns in Zambia

Background: Like many sub-Saharan African countries, Zambia is dealing with major health issues, including HIV/AIDS, family planning, and reproductive health. To address reproductive health problems and the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Zambia, several social marketing and health communication programs focusing on reproductive and HIV/AIDS prevention programs are being implemented. This paper describes the reach of these programs and assesses their impact on condom use. Methods: This paper assesses the reach of selected radio and television programs about family planning and HIV/AIDS and of communications about the socially marketed Maximum condoms in Zambia, as well as their impact on condom use, using data from the 2001-2002 Zambia Demographic and Health Survey. To control for self-selection and endogeneity, we use a two-stage regression model to estimate the effect of program exposure on the behavioural outcomes. Results: Those who were exposed to radio and television programs about family planning and HIV/AIDS were more likely to have ever used a condom (OR = 1.16 for men and 1.06 for women). Men highly exposed to Maximum condoms social marketing communication were more likely than those with low exposure to the program to have ever used a condom (OR = 1.48), and to have used a condom at their last sexual intercourse (OR = 1.23). Conclusion: Findings suggest that the reproductive health and social marketing campaigns in Zambia reached a large portion of the population and had a significant impact on condom use. The results suggest that future reproductive health communication campaigns that invest in radio programming may be more effective than those investing in television programming, and that future campaigns should seek to increase their impact among women, perhaps by focusing on the specific constrains that prevent females from using condoms

Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in low-resource countries: the case for equipoise and the need for efficacy trials

The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials-the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial-have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO's current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice

Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in low-resource countries: the case for equipoise and the need for efficacy trials

The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials-the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial-have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO's current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice