| Literature DB >> 28302136 |
Andrea J Hoopes1, Paras Agarwal2, Sheana Bull3,4, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli5.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28302136 PMCID: PMC5353798 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-016-0267-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Standards from Government of India Implementation Guide for Adolescent Friendly Health Services a
| Standards | Issues covered |
|---|---|
| 1. Availability of specific service package | • Dedicated ARSH clinic (Preventive, Promotive, Curative, and Referral) |
| 2. Delivery of effective services | • Adequate manpower |
| 3. Conducive environment at clinic | • Location and timing |
| 4. Sensitive and non-judgemental providers | • Attitude |
| 5. Enabling environment in community | • Sensitization |
| 6. Adolescents informed on availability of services | • Signboard |
| 7. MIS in place | • Recording and reporting |
a (National Rural Health Mission. Implementation guide on RCH II adolescent reproductive sexual health strategy for state and district programme managers [Internet]. 2006. Available from: http://www.searo.who.int/entity/child_adolescent/topics/adolescent_health/rch_asrh_india.pdf
Evaluation or study designs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Characteristics of evaluations (N=18)
| ID | LOCATION (State: districtblock or villages) | YEAR | ORGANIZATION(S) PERFORMING (“BY”) AND REQUESTING (“FOR”) EVALUATION | OBJECTIVE OF EVALUATION | PROGRAMME EVALUATED | EVALUATION DESIGN | EVALUATION METHODS | FACILITY TYPE EVALUATED | SCOPE OF EVALUATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 2001 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Aarogya: Centre for Health-Nutrition Education and Health Promotion based in Fatehganj, Vadodara, Gujarat) | To measure behaviour change among participants of a reproductive health promotion initiative | Better Life Options Programme components: |
| Post-implementation structured interviews with programme participants and nonparticipants using two questionnaires | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Number of facilities and adolescent clients using those facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2003 | BY: International NGO (CEPDA) and indigenous NGO partners (PRAYATIN in slums of South Delhi, YWCA of India in slums of East Delhi, Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses (SPYM) in slums of Delhi and 5 villages in Haryana, Bhartiya Gramin Mahila |
| ENABLE Project: 16 month pilot programme to deliver “Adolescent-Friendly Reproductive Health Services” through 4 NGOs in 3 states of India (Delhi, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh). In addition to traditional Better Life Options programme components (above), ENABLE provided partner organizations opportunity to integrate |
| (1) Pre- and postimplementation survey assessing perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Number of facilities and adolescent clients using those facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2008 | BY: National government agency (Government of India/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (GoI/MHFW)) | (1) To assess quality of adolescent-friendly health services (AFHS) at selected health facilities in Haryana and to compare quality in AFHS facilities to non- AFHS facilities | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Post-implementation interviews of MOs, ANMs, and adolescent clients | PHCs, CHCs, and SCs offering ARSH | Evaluation covered 10 ARSH clinics and 10 other sites in Both AFHS and non-AFHS sites included 2 PHC and 8 SC evaluations |
|
|
| 2008 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Society for Women and Children’s Health (SWACH)) and state government agency (MHFW), Haryana State) | (1) To assess health problems of adolescents | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| Post-implementation household survey of adolescents to measure reported health problems and reported use and quality of SRHS | Type of government facilities not specified | Evaluation covered 30 intervention villages + 30 comparison villages (with 20 adolescents in each) = 599 adolescents from 893 households in intervention villages, 594 adolescents from 868 households in comparison villages |
|
|
| 2008 | BY: Consulting agency (Centre for Operations Research and Training (CORT)) FOR: International NGO (UNFPA) and state government agency (MHFW, Gujarat State) | (1) To evaluate quality of ARSH services | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Qualitative individual interviews with health workers and government health officials | Type of health facilities not specified | 21 facilities visited, of which 17 (81%) were functional and able to be assessed 3 state officials, 9 district officials, 17 MOs, 19 grassroots level health workers 28 focus group discussions with adolescent boys and girls Denominator: 42 total ARSH facilities = 50% coverage; adolescent population served by facilities not specified) |
|
|
| 2009 | BY: Academic institution/university | (1) To assess status of ARSH services | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Qualitative interviews with MOs, ANMs, adolescent clients | PHCs, SCs, and sub-divisional hospital (SDH) | Interviews with 6 MOs, 11 ANMs, 24 adolescent clients Assessment of 10 health facilities (3 PHCs, 6 SCs, 1 SDH) |
|
|
| 2010 | BY: Consulting agency (India Institute of Health Management Research (IHMR)) FOR: Multilateral agency (UNFPA, Rajasthan State Office) | (1) To assess status of ARSH services in 4 districts in Rajasthan | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Interviews with health service providers and adolescent clients | Primary health care centers (PHCs), community health centers (CHCs), and district hospitals (DHs) | Evaluation covered 12 AFHCs in 4 selected districts provided at 1 of each facility type (DH, CHC, and PHC) in each district 24 providers were interviewed 131 adolescents interviewed Denominator: 110 operating AFHCs in 4 selected districts among 8 districts where service package has been implemented. Adolescent population served by facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2011 | BY: Multilateral agency (UNFPA) FOR: Multilateral agency (UNFPA) on behalf of multiple state governments throughout India (including Government of Maharashtra for this particular portion of report) | (1) To evaluate the functioning of the AFHCs | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| Specific methodology not specified | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Number of facilities and adolescent clients using those facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2011 | BY: Academic institution/university (Population Research Centre, Institute of Economic Growth) FOR: National government (Programme Evaluation Organisation Planning Commission/Government of India) | To evaluate and assess availability, adequacy and utilization of AFHS in rural areas | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Household survey | DHs, CHCs, PHCs, SCs and 296 villages over 37 districts in 7 states | Facility survey covered 37 DHs, 74 CHCs, 148 PHCs, 296 SCs, and 296 villages stretched over 37 districts over 7 states of India 25 households for the household survey in each selected village was based on identification of 5 households under each of the following categories: those having pregnant woman, having lactating women, with children 1-5 years, with at least one chronic disease patient, and having utilized family planning services = 7400 households Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2011 | BY: International NGO (Pathfinder International) FOR: International NGO (Pathfinder International) | To evaluate knowledge, attitude, and practice changes after Phase I and II of PRACHAR intervention as well as impact of PRACHAR IRH training Evaluation specifically looks at differences in impact based on different components of the intervention | PRACHAR intervention: (1) Social environment building |
| Pre- and postimplementation survey of participants | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2012 | BY: Academic institution/university (India Council of Medical Research (ICMR)) FOR: ICMR | (1) To assess knowledge, attitude, and behaviour on reproductive health problems in adolescents | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme |
| (1) Community-based survey of adolescents with measurement of height, weight, midupper arm circumference, haemoglobin of adolescent clients | Adolescent friendly health clinics (type of facility not further specified) | Community sample in 2 districts included 720 households in Kalahandi, 657 households in Rayagada -Covered 858 (Junagarh 567, Dharmagarh 291 in Kalahandi) and 755 (Rayagada 420, Gunupur 335 in Rayagada) adolescents respectively 224 stakeholders interviewed (116 in Kalahandi and 108 in Rayagada) 73 health service providers interviewed (30 in Kalahandi, 43 in Rayagada) Quality of care evaluated at 2 AFHCs in Kalahandi and 1 in Rayagada Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2012 | BY: Consulting agency (Futures Group International) FOR: Foreign government agency (USAID) | To compile a summary of numerous published and unpublished materials to capture best practices, lessons learned and recommendations developed over course of 2 years of work on ARSH within Innovation in Family Planning Services (IFPS) Projects and IFPS Technical Assistance Project (ITAP) | UDAAN intervention: |
| (1) Questionnaire measuring SRH knowledge and behaviors among adolescents | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | 80 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected by sampling 10 villages from 8 pilot blocks. 32 adolescents were selected from each PSU to include 2500 adolescents total in assessment Midterm assessment included 317 adolescents who had used at least one UDAAN services and 1273 who had not used any UDAAN service Denominator: Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
|
| 2013 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Research Unit at MAMTA-Health Institute for Mother and Child, Delhi) FOR: Not specified | To assess youth friendly health services from clients’ perspectives and role of outreach activities in improving access to the services for purpose of potential upscaling | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme and community outreach through provision of Youth Information Centers (YIC) |
| (1) Semi-structured interviews to measure demographics, time spent on client-provider interactions, perception regarding privacy and confidentiality, awareness about YIC activities, role of YIC, level of satisfaction | Youth friendly health facilities not further specified | Consecutive sample of 120 clients from 4 selected clinics for exit interviews 8 focus group discussions (8-10 participants each) conducted among community members and young people Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2013 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Research Unit at MAMTA-Health Institute for Mother and Child, Delhi) FOR: Not specified | To analyse key determinants of YFHS that influence client’s satisfaction level in order to help decision makers implement programmes tailored to clients’ perceived needs | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme |
| Semi-structured interviews with clients to measure demographics, time spent on client-provider interactions, perception regarding privacy and confidentiality, level of satisfaction | Youth friendly health facilities not further specified | Consecutive sample of 120 clients from 4 selected clinics for exit interviews Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2014 | BY: academic institution/university (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH/Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) FOR: State government (Government of Maharashtra) | To assess the quality of adolescent health related services in Maharashtra against the 7 ARSH standards established by GoI in 2005 | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Structured interview questionnaires for staff and clients | SDH, PHCs, SCs | 10 health facilities: 1 SDH, 3 PHCs, 6 SCs during first year SCs excluded during 2nd year 3 additional PHCs and RH added for 2nd-5th years for total 8 facilities (1 SDH, 6 PHCs, 1 RH) 1 Taluk Health Officer, MO, and ANM interviewed at each site Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified. Number of clients interviewed not reported. |
|
|
| 2014 | BY academic institution/university (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH)/Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) FOR: multilateral agency (WHO) and state government (Government of Maharashtra) | To test (in one block of one district) the feasibility of a developed action plan designed to link ARSH and HIV services in two districts. | Linking Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme and HIV services |
| Did not specify tools for testing feasibility interventions to link ARSH-HIV services | SDH, RH, PHCs, | 8 facilities included in evaluation: 1 SDH, 1 RH, and 6 PHCs Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified. |
|
|
| 2014 | BY: International NGO (Population Council) FOR: National government (Government of India/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) | To identify approaches to enhanced service delivery through adolescent-friendly health centers through refinements in content of and approaches to training and to inform strategies to generate demand for services | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) In-depth interviews with ASHAs, ANMS, counsellors, and medical officers | Adolescent friendly health centers in community health centers (CHCs), subdistrict hospital (SDH), or rural hospitals | 12 AHFCs were evaluated of total 180 AFHCs in Jharkhand, 140 AFHCs in Maharashtra, and unspecific number in Rajasthan 24 mystery client visits (8 each in Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan) Exit interviews performed with 5 adolescents (4 in Jharkhand and 1 in Maharashtra) Community-based survey covered a proportional distribution of 2131 adolescents from 48 villages within the 3 states (736 from Jharkand, 682 from Maharashtra, and 713 from Rajasthan) Denominator: Total number of facilities and adolescent population served by these facilities not specified |
|
|
| 2013 | BY: academic institution/university (Maulana Azad Medical College) and state government (Directorate of Family Welfare) | To evaluate availability, type and quality of facilities providing RH services to adolescents in public and private sector | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme |
| (1) Semi-structured interviews with facility managers | Primary, secondary, and tertiary health centres | 9 of 9 total district head quarters assessed for availability of services 4 of 9 total districts sample for quality of services: 39 of 39 total facility managers, 31 of 31 secondary and tertiary units, 70 of 250 primary units, and 936 of 907,710 adolescents |
Characteristics of research studies (N = 12)
| ID | Location (State:District-Block or villages) | Year | Organization(s) performing (“BY”) and requesting (“FOR”) study | Objective of study | Programme mestudied | Study design | Study methods | Facility type studied | Scope of study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Maharashtra: Dhamari village, Pune | 2006 | BY: International NGO (ICRW) and academic institution/university (KEM Hospital) | To test feasibility in rural context to provide married youth with integrated package of | Providing integrated package of: |
| (1) Methods not specified | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Number of facilities and adolescent clients using those facilities not specified |
|
| Maharashtra: Urban Mumbai | 2006 | BY: academic institution/university (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH)) | To assess the reproductive health problems and help-seeking behaviour among urban school-going adolescents [in context of ongoing intervention in schools in urban Mumbai during 2003-04 aimed at | Providing school-based |
| (1) Self-administered questionnaire and collection of biologic health data during camp | Outpatient clinic on a school premises | 300 urban school-going adolescents participated (11-14 year olds) from a single outpatient clinic on a school premises. A separate evaluation (not included) was done for 300 15-19 year olds |
|
| Maharashtra: 2 unspecified blocks in Ahmednagar | 2006 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Foundation for Research in Health Systems (FRHS)) and international NGO (International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)) | To assess the effectiveness of | (1) Social mobilization strategy implemented through indigenous, community-based women’s and youth organizations to provide structured, interaction and recurrent health education sessions on select reproductive health topics. |
| (1) Pre- and post-surveys of young married womens’ assessing knowledge and reported utilization of services | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Number of facilities and adolescent clients using those facilities not specified |
|
| Haryana/Punjab: Sectors 19 and 38 of Chandigarh City | 2008 | BY: academic institution/university (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research) | (1) To assess perceived health problems and help seeking behaviour of adolescents | Establishing adolescent health clinics in two diverse settings; a school-based clinic and a dispensary-based clinic |
| Semi-structured questionnaire and analysis of clinic utilization records | School-based clinic and dispensary-based clinic, both described as “adolescent health clinics”) | 360 adolescents using 2 facilities (1 school-based clinic and 1 dispensary-based clinic) were selected by stratified random sampling from a population of 3000 adolescents (2100 from sector 19 in 2 schools and 900 from sector 19 in 1 school) |
|
| Bihar: Nalanda, Nawada, Patna | 2008 | BY: International NGO (Pathfinder International) | To assess effect of PRACHAR intervention on: | PRACHAR intervention: |
| Pre- and post-implementation questionnaire | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
| Delhi, West Bengal, and Chandigarh: South West Delhi District, Chandigarh- Sector 32, Kolkata District of West Bengal state | 2009 | BY: Academic institution/university (India Council of Medical Research (ICMR)) | To examine whether adolescent friendly health centres (AFC) have increased the quality and access to health services as per the client’s perception | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme |
| (1) Interviews with key stakeholders (staff members, adolescents, parents) | ARSH in government health facilities and corresponding “control” outpatient clinics (eg obstetrics, skin care) in government facilities | 3 intervention sites in tertiary care hospitals located in medical colleges, all run outreach program in schools as well |
|
| Maharashtra: Mumbai | 2010 | BY: Academic institution/university (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH) and state government agency (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) | To test the feasibility of delivering ARSH services within public sector of Mumbai and to evaluate scaled up ARSH services at other health facilities | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| (1) Focus group discussions with adolescents, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders | Government primary care health posts with subsequent scale-up to include secondary care level hospitals | Research phase questionnaire participants |
|
| Bihar: Nalanda, Nawada, Patna | 2010 | By: International NGO (Pathfinder International) | To estimate the impact of implementing the PRACHAR model in the reproductive health and FP programs in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh | PRACHAR intervention (see above) |
| Population projection using computer programme SPECTRUM to evaluate change in two fertility parameters (total fertility rate and age-pattern of fertility) over period under projection 2005 and 2025 | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
| Bihar: Gaya, Nalanda, Nawada, and Patna | 2011 | BY: International NGO (Pathfinder International) and consulting agency (India Institute of Health Management Research (IHMR)) | To conduct retrospective analysis of PRACHAR phase I and II data to develop a better understanding of the impact of FP/SRH outcomes and analyse possible trends in gender norms, attitudes, practices related to SRH that may have changed over time as result of PRACHAR | PRACHAR intervention (see above) |
| (1) Post-implementation structured interview to assess history of marriage, reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, and pregnancy outcomes | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
| Gujarat: Ahmedabad | 2012 | BY: Academic institution/university (Department of Community Medicine, Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat) | To evaluate knowledge regarding AFHS among Anganwadi workers (AWWs) | Provision of a didactic education session with power point presentation, uterus model and chalkboard on importance of adolescent health to 111 AWWs in order to improve health services based on Government of India’s Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health Programme |
| Questionnaire measuring knowledge of Anganwadi workers | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
|
| 2012 | By: International NGO (Pathfinder International/Daniel et al) | To assess the effect of intervention on age at marriage, contraceptive use before and after first birth, age at first birth | PRACHAR intervention (see above) |
| Post-implementation structured interview using questionnaire to assess history of marriage, reproductive health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, and pregnancy outcomes | Type of health facilities within intervention not specified | Health facilities in intervention communities and number of adolescent participants using facilities not assessed |
|
|
| 2013 | BY: Indigenous NGO (Research Unit at MAMTA-Health Institute for Mother and Child, Delhi) | To describe features of the intervention and to investigate (1) the impact on improving awareness and utilization of services by adolescents and (2) the quality of ARSH services in the intervention districts | Delivering health services based on Government of India’s ARSH Programme |
| Community-based survey of adolescents | Youth friendly health facilities not further specified | 17/217 villages in Arajliine and 17/333 villages in Hosakote with 12 girls and 12 boys selected from each → total sample = 737 adolescents (383 M, 354 F) |
Main findings of evaluations (N = 18)
| Findings from the evaluations of: | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID | Design | Implementation | Outputs (quality and coverage) | Health behaviour outcomes | Health outcomes | Comments |
| Eg. | Project goal | Implementation plan | Pre-inputs: Training material, training of trainers, clinical monitoring (CM), CM training, supportive supervision (SS) material, SS training | Effect on adolescent behaviour (sexual behaviour, condom/contraceptive use behaviour/health seeking behaviour) | Eg. nutritional status, early pregnancy and pregnancy related mortality and morbidity, STIs and HIV | Other evaluation dimensions: community support and adolescent demand, planning and management, institutionalisation, cost |
|
| Better Life Options participants were more likely to have received antenatal care during pregnancy (91% vs. 64%), received tetanus toxoid immunization during pregnancy (91% vs. 62), delivered in health facility (50% vs. 36%), received post-natal care (57% vs. 39%), and currently be using contraception (36% vs. 27%) | Better Life Options participants had lower mean number of children (1.73 vs. 1.98) | Other social outcomes including age at marriage, level of education completed, literacy were also were also evaluated | |||
|
| Intervention was feasible (focus on general adolescent health very effective; programme faced little resistance from parents, programme implementers, schools) | Statistically significant ( | Statistically significant ( | |||
|
| Evaluation identified program implementation, noting that ARSH-related supplies were found to be available, but not uniformly being distributed to adolescents | Difference in quality scores between ARSH and other clinics for each standard (statistical significance is not reported): | ||||
|
| Awareness of AFHS 8x higher in intervention area than comparison villages (68% vs. 8%)° | |||||
|
| Some centres were non-functional due to transfer of MO who was oriented about centre and lack of human resources | Utilization data (average number of adolescent patients/month) showed minimal utilization. Where records available, average 250 adolescent clients/month. | Quality of health services based on provider report, not direct observation, and scoring performed by evaluation team | |||
|
| Only 1 facility (SDH) was “designated” AFHS at time of assessment | Proportion of 7 standards of ASRH services implemented at each facility ranged from 19% to 42% | Positive feasibility of using quality assessment tools | |||
|
| 83% of clinics had been functional for less than one year | 42% maintained audio and visual privacy | ||||
|
| 53,137 adolescents (40% male, 60% female) accessed services by 73 clinics | |||||
|
| Adolescent health care available in 85.4% of SCs in 7 different states | |||||
|
| If comprehensive intervention is discontinued, there is an initial decline in contraceptive use in both groups after activities end, then stabilizes at higher level than pre-intervention | |||||
|
| AWW and ASHA stakeholders have more knowledge about health concerns/programs meant for adolescents than did teacher and Panchayati Raj Institution members | Low SRH knowledge in adolescent community | ||||
|
| Scale-up included changes based on findings from evaluation of pilot intervention, including the addition of new service delivery points, shift in monitoring responsibilities, improvements in efficiency of services | Improved attitudes and behaviours related to reproductive and sexual health including decrease on preference for male child from 39.9% to 25.7% ( | ||||
|
| Majority (90%) of clients aware that YFHS provide services to young men and women separately on specific day/time | |||||
|
| 32% of interviewed clients reported satisfaction with AFHS | |||||
|
| Raw quality scores showed steady improvement with average score of 83% across all 8 health facilities in 5th year of evaluation and 79% across 12 sub-centres. | |||||
|
| Situation analysis informed development of the following interventions as a block action plan: | Feasibility assessment of block action plan found that: | Findings of quality assessment program reported in separate evaluation document (43) | |||
|
| Most health care providers had undergone some training or sensitisation on SRH issues relevant to adolescents – some within context of general training and others through special training programs | <50% of surveyed men and <66% of surveyed women who experienced an SRH problem had sought advice and/or treatment, fewer (33%) for mental health concerns. Most sought treatment from medical officers in government or private facilities. | Report also summarizes the perceived health problems among adolescents surveyed as well as their preferences about health care providers and facilities | |||
|
| Data on health facilities providing ARSH services is sparse and only covers public facilities. | Low awareness of ARHS problems and availability of service among adolescents in community | ||||