The Health Sector Response to Gender-Based Violence and Sexual Reproductive Health Programs in the Commonwealth and Selected African Countries: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The intertwining nature of gender-based violence (GBV) and violence perpetrated against women and girls (VAWG), as well as sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), underlines the urgent need for the health sector to enhance the coordination of services to improve health outcomes. Importantly, GBV and VAWG are intricately linked to a spectrum of SRHR challenges, ranging from unintended pregnancies to severe maternal, gynecological, and mental health outcomes. Cumulative GBV had a more significant effect on abortion risk than associated variables. Recognizing the interplay between GBV, VAWG, and SRHR highlights the necessity for a comprehensive health sector response. A systematic review of the health sector response to GBV, VAWG, and SRHR will be conducted to understand the extent and array of health facility-based coordinated responses to GBV, VAWG, and SRHR; lessons learned; and successes and challenges in the Commonwealth and selected African countries. OBJECTIVE: We aim to understand the context of GBV, VAWG, and SRHR by conducting a comprehensive review of health sector responses in different national, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts, and we aim to share best practices, experiences, and lessons learned. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework will be applied to screen and select relevant sources guided by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review will include relevant research papers published in the last 15 years and conducted in the 24 Commonwealth and 7 selected African countries. Electronic databases to be searched will include PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, and POPline. RESULTS: Ethics approval will be waived as the study will use data in the public domain. The project has been commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat (2022-2025). The database search, data screening, and data extraction process for the review will be completed by September 2025. A manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed international journal by November 2025. The initial online database searches, citations of eligible studies, and Microsoft Copilot identified 38,200 studies focusing on GBV, VAWG, and SRHR interventions. To date, 60 studies have been found eligible for inclusion in the review. The majority of these studies were conducted in eastern Africa (n=34), South Africa (n=14), and Asia (n=13). Evidence generated from this review will be made available through journal publications, seminars and workshops with key stakeholders, ministries of health, and local and international conferences. CONCLUSIONS: The study will generate evidence to inform recommendations on addressing and mitigating the effects of GBV and VAWG on SRHR outcomes and coordinated services in the health sectors of Commonwealth and selected African countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024520594; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024520594. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/67571.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,140 | 0,170 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,034 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,052 | 0,006 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».