Invest in adolescents and young people: it pays

Abstract This year’s Women Deliver conference made a strong call for investing in the health and development of adolescents and young people. It highlighted the unique problems faced by adolescent girls and young women–some of the most vulnerable and neglected individuals in the world–and stressed the importance of addressing their needs and rights, not only for their individual benefit, but also to achieve global goals such as reducing maternal mortality and HIV infection.In response to an invitation from the editors of Reproductive Health, we-the sixteen coauthors of this commentary–put together key themes that reverberated throughout the conference, on the health and development needs of adolescents and young people, and promising solutions to meet them.1. Investing in adolescents and young people is crucial for ensuring health, creating prosperity and fulfilling human rights.2. Gender inequality contributes to many health and social problems. Adolescent girls and boys, and their families and communities, should be challenged and supported to change inequitable gender norms.– Child marriage utterly disempowers girls. It is one of the most devastating manifestations of gender discrimination.– Negative social and cultural attitudes towards menstruation constrain the lives of millions of girls. This may well establish the foundation for lifelong discomfort felt by girls about their bodies and reticence in seeking help when problems arise.3. Adolescents need comprehensive, accurate and developmentally appropriate sexuality education. This will provide the bedrock for attitude formation and decision making.4. Adolescent-centered health services can prevent sexual and reproductive health problems and detect and treat them if and when they occur.5. National governments have the authority and the responsibility to address social and cultural barriers to the provision of sexual and reproductive health education and services for adolescents and young people.6. Adolescents should be involved more meaningfully in national and local actions intended to meet their needs and respond to their problems.7. The time to act is now. We know more now than ever before about the health and development needs of adolescents and young people, as well as the solutions to meeting those needs

What Prevents Quality Midwifery Care? A Systematic Mapping of Barriers in Low and Middle Income Countries from the Provider Perspective.

BACKGROUND:Quality of care is essential for further progress in reducing maternal and newborn deaths. The integration of educated, trained, regulated and licensed midwives into the health system is associated with improved quality of care and sustained decreases in maternal and newborn mortality. To date, research on barriers to quality of care for women and newborns has not given due attention to the care provider's perspective. This paper addresses this gap by presenting the findings of a systematic mapping of the literature of the social, economic and professional barriers preventing midwifery personnel in low and middle income countries (LMICs) from providing quality of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS:A systematic search of five electronic databases for literature published between January 1990 and August 2013. Eligible items included published and unpublished items in all languages. Items were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding 82 items from 34 countries. 44% discussed countries or regions in Africa, 38% in Asia, and 5% in the Americas. Nearly half the articles were published since 2011. Data was extracted and presented in a narrative synthesis and tables. Items were organized into three categories; social; economic and professional barriers, based on an analytical framework. Barriers connected to the socially and culturally constructed context of childbirth, although least reported, appear instrumental in preventing quality midwifery care. CONCLUSIONS:Significant social and cultural, economic and professional barriers can prevent the provision of quality midwifery care in LMICs. An analytical framework is proposed to show how the overlaps between the barriers reinforce each other, and that they arise from gender inequality. Links are made between burn out and moral distress, caused by the barriers, and poor quality care. Ongoing mechanisms to improve quality care will need to address the barriers from the midwifery provider perspective, as well as the underlying gender inequality

Analytical framework: barriers to the provision of quality of care by midwifery personnel.

<p>Analytical framework: barriers to the provision of quality of care by midwifery personnel.</p

Examples of how heavy workload prevents quality midwifery care.

<p>Examples of how heavy workload prevents quality midwifery care.</p

Examples of how lack of investment in midwifery training prevents quality midwifery care.

<p>Examples of how lack of investment in midwifery training prevents quality midwifery care.</p

Mapping results.

<p>Mapping results.</p

The revised analytical framework for barriers to the provision of quality of care by midwifery personnel.

<p>The revised analytical framework for barriers to the provision of quality of care by midwifery personnel.</p

How absence of regulatory frameworks and professional associations prevents quality midwifery care.

<p>How absence of regulatory frameworks and professional associations prevents quality midwifery care.</p

Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?

Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifery continuity of care models implemented? Using a scoping review framework, we searched electronic and grey literature databases for reports in any language between January 2012 and January 2022, which described current and recent trials, implementation or scaling-up of midwifery continuity of care studies or initiatives in high-, middle- and low-income countries. After screening, 175 reports were included, the majority (157, 90%) from high-income countries (HICs) and fewer (18, 10%) from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There were 163 unique studies including eight (4.9%) randomised or quasi-randomised trials, 58 (38.5%) qualitative, 53 (32.7%) quantitative (cohort, cross sectional, descriptive, observational), 31 (19.0%) survey studies, and three (1.9%) health economics analyses. There were 10 practice-based accounts that did not include research. Midwives led almost all continuity of care models. In HICs, the most dominant model was where small groups of midwives provided care for designated women, across the antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care continuum. This was mostly known as caseload midwifery or midwifery group practice. There was more diversity of models in low- to middle-income countries. Of the 175 initiatives described, 31 (18%) were implemented for women, newborns and families from priority or vulnerable communities. With the exception of New Zealand, no countries have managed to scale-up continuity of midwifery care at a national level. Further implementation studies are needed to support countries planning to transition to midwifery continuity of care models in all countries to determine optimal model types and strategies to achieve sustainable scale-up at a national level