Sexual and reproductive health for all: The challenge still stands
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This Global Public Health Special Issue ‘SRHR for the next decades: What's been achieved? What lies ahead?’ assesses progress 20 years after the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which established the sexual and reproductive health and rights framework for population and health policy (United Nations [UN], 1995). Contributors from different regions demonstrate that the challenges recognised by the ICPD still stand, and that lessons learned provide a clear way forward for the world's governments as they convene at the United Nations (UN) to agree on priority actions, and a post-2015 global development agenda. Fulfilment of sexual and reproductive health and rights enables people to have a satisfying and safe sex life, to reproduce if and when they desire and to have access to the health services and information necessary to make informed decisions, free of discrimination, coercion and violence (UN, 1995). According to a recent UN Global Review Report, progress has been made in the implementation of the ICPD agenda, but we still fall short of the ICPD goal of sexual and reproductive health for all (United Nations, 2014). International and national commitments have not been matched with action to improve the lives of people, particularly women, across our one world. One of the starkest examples is the persistent pandemic of violence against women. Global and national indicators of progress are welcome, but mask harsh inequity, between and within countries (Barros et al., 2012). The better-off drive progress indicators upwards, while the marginalised and the underprivileged are left behind. The penalties for these shortfalls are heavy in terms of avoidable human suffering and lost opportunities for economic and human development. Health and rights in sexuality and reproduction are an integrated package (Fathalla, 2002), which, the ICPD agreed, includes sexual and reproductive health services (family planning, maternity care, safe abortion, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and HIV, among others); comprehensive sexuality education; and protection of sexual and reproductive rights. People cannot be healthy if they have one element of the package but miss others (Germain, Dixon-Mueller, & Sen, 2009). The papers in this Special Issue show that progress on the components of sexual and reproductive health and rights has been uneven. While acknowledging that certain components may be more difficult or more costly to implement, progress in many instances has been hindered on ideological, rather than scientific, public health and cost-effectiveness grounds. This Special Issue also considers the central role of addressing the underlying social and political determinants of sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as work towards universal health coverage, currently facing an uphill struggle (The Lancet, 2012). Papers and commentaries stress that a human rights platform is essential for all of this work, along with strengthening of health systems, and design and delivery of comprehensive and integrated packages of health services and information. Sexual and reproductive health for all is an achievable goal (Fathalla, Sinding, Rosenfield, & Fathalla, 2006). Those of us who participated in the ICPD and have seen the paradigm shift from ‘counting people’ to ‘people count’ have no hesitation in giving credit to women who abandoned silence and made their voices loudly heard, then and now. They demand faster progress towards sexual and reproductive health and rights for all. Despite steep mountains to climb, make no mistake: women are not turning back.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».