Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high burden of adverse adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes, it has remained a low political priority in Kenya. We examined factors that have shaped the lack of current political prioritization of adolescent SRH service provision.
METHODS: We used the Shiffman and Smith policy framework consisting of four categories-actor power, ideas, political contexts, and issue characteristics-to analyse factors that have shaped political prioritization of adolescent SRH. We undertook semi-structured interviews with 14 members of adolescent SRH networks between February and April 2019 at the national level and conducted thematic analysis of the interviews.
FINDINGS: Several factors hinder the attainment of political priority for adolescent SRH in Kenya. On actor power, the adolescent SRH community was diverse and united in adoption of international norms and policies, but lacked policy entrepreneurs to provide strong leadership, and policy windows were often missed. Regarding ideas, community members lacked consensus on a cohesive public positioning of the problem. On issue characteristics, the perception of adolescents as lacking political power made politicians reluctant to act on the existing data on the severity of adolescent SRH. There was also a lack of consensus on the nature of interventions to be implemented. Pertaining to political contexts, sectoral funding by donors and government treasury brought about tension within the different government ministries resulting in siloed approaches, lack of coordination and overall inefficiency. However, the SRH community has several strengths that augur well for future political support. These include the diverse multi-sectoral background of its members, commitment to improving adolescent SRH, and the potential to link with other health priorities such as maternal health and HIV/AIDS.
CONCLUSION: In order to increase political attention to adolescent SRH in Kenya, there is an urgent need for policy actors to: 1) create a more cohesive community of advocates across sectors, 2) develop a clearer public positioning of adolescent SRH, 3) agree on a set of precise approaches that will resonate with the political system, and 4) identify and nurture policy entrepreneurs to facilitate the coupling of adolescent SRH with potential solutions when windows of opportunity arise.

Introduction

There is an increased focus on adolescent sexual reproductive health (SRH) in the global health agenda [1, 2]. Several global calls including the Every Woman Every Child Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s, and Adolescents’ Health (2016–2030) [3] and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [4] emphasize the need to focus on adolescents. Many African states recognize the pivotal role of addressing adolescent SRH not just in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2030, but also in reaping the demographic dividend [5]. Unfortunately, these global and regional norms and instruments are often overlooked and there is often inadequate policy orientation and political prioritization to meet adolescent SRH at the individual country level in sub-Saharan Africa. Political priority is present when: 1) national political leaders publicly and privately express continued concern for an issue, 2) the government legislates policies that offer widely accepted strategies to address the problem, and 3) the government apportions and releases public budgets proportionate with the problem’s severity [6].

Priority setting for health interventions is one of the most challenging and complex issues faced by health policy decision-makers all over the world [7, 8]. Priority setting is defined as the process by which decisions are made on how health care resources should be allocated among competing programs or individuals [9]. A recent systematic review [10] found that regardless of the context, priority setting is often value-laden and political [11-14] and requires credible evidence, strong and legitimate institutions, and fair processes [15-17]. In many instances, particularly in developing countries, the priority setting process is often “messy”, “ad hoc,” and happens by chance [18]. In resource-limited settings such as sub-Saharan Africa, priority setting on domestic issues is often further complicated by: 1) financial constraints that create an increasing gap between available resources and demand for health services; 2) lack of sufficient and dependable data and information systems to substantiate investments in health care compared to alternative investments such as infrastructure; 3) multiple international players who provide financial and technical assistance but also have their priorities; and 4) implementation obstacles, such as political instability, conflicting political priorities, social inequalities, and inadequately developed government institutions and civil societies [7, 19, 20].

While the importance of priority setting in public health is not in question, there is a dearth of qualitative inquiry on how it is operationalized within the context of adolescent SRH and in sub-Saharan Africa. This paper qualitatively examines which factors have facilitated or hindered political prioritization of adolescent SRH in Kenya. The conceptual model that guides this policy analysis is drawn primarily from the Shiffman and Smith framework [6], which consists of four categories: the power of actors involved, the ideas they use to portray the issue, the nature of the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself [6].

Materials and methods

Description of study design

We employed an interpretive focused ethnographic approach [21-23]. Ethnography seeks to develop an in-depth understanding of how people or societies make sense of their lived experience within their sociocultural environments [24]. Ethnographic methodology was well suited to this study because it allows for exploration and understanding of both the process and outcome of adolescent SRH policy making through complete observation, reconstruction, and analysis in a real-world context. Our reporting is in line with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines (see S1 File) [25].

Study setting

The study took place in Kenya. Kenya has shown leadership in the area of adolescent SRH by adopting favorable international and regional policies and legal frameworks that promote adolescent SRH. At the global level these include the 1994 United Nations at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) [26], the 2002 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children [27]; the Committee of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Comment no. 4 of 2003[28]; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) [29] and the international Sustainable Development Goals at a global level [30]. At the regional level, in Africa, Kenya has adopted the Maputo Protocol [31] and the Common Africa Position (CAP) on the Post-2015 development agenda [32]. Locally the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, the National Youth Policy (2007) and the National Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy (2015) all emphasize this commitment. However, adolescents in this country continue to be burdened by negative SRH outcomes. At the national level, 103 out of every 1000 births are to 15-to-19-year-old girls, which represents 37% of the national total fertility rate[33]. Data from the National AIDS Control Council show that adolescents between the ages of 15–24 years have 46% of all new infections in Kenya and represent about 17.7% of persons living with HIV and 11% of all HIV-related deaths in the country[34].

Theoretical underpinning: Shiffman and Smith framework

Although the Shiffman and Smith framework was originally focused on priority setting at the global health level, it has grown to be applicable in explaining the political prioritization processes in numerous national and subnational settings. In particular, this model has been used in mapping priority setting processes for health in low-resource settings across Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa, which demonstrates its transferability to the study of health policy in resource-constrained settings such as Kenya [35, 36]. Table 1 outlines in details the main components of the framework as outlined by Shiffman and Smith[6].

Table 1

Shiffman and Smith framework.

	Description	Factors shaping political priority
Actor power	The strength of the individuals and organizations concerned with the issue	1. Policy community cohesion2. Leadership3. Guiding institutions4. Civil society mobilization
Ideas	The ways in which those involved with the issue understand and portray it	1. Internal frame2. External frame
Political contexts	The environments in which actors operate	1. Policy windows2. Global governance structure
Issue characteristics	Features of the problem	1. Credible indicators:2. Severity (the size of the burden relative to other problems)3. Effective interventions

This table is a summary of the original Shiffman and Smith framework[6]

Recruitment

We used purposive sampling to identify participants. Eligibility criteria included state and non-state policy actors in Kenya who are involved in the adolescent SRH policymaking process. State actors that were targeted included senior government officials from the ministries of health, youth and gender affairs, devolution and planning, and education. A list of potential participants was developed and prioritized according to the following criteria: job position that was previously or currently held, expected expertise and knowledge that they possess regarding SRH, and names that were repeatedly identified as being critical people to interview. We excluded officials from the sub-national governments since within Kenya’s devolved health system; policymaking is a national function. The lead researcher and a representative from the Ministry of Health’s Division of Reproductive and Maternal Health identified potential participants. Participants were then contacted via telephone, given a brief overview of the study, and asked if they were willing to participate. Subsequently, interviewees were also asked to suggest other potential participants who had contributed or influenced the adolescent SRH policy making processes.

Our ethnographic methodology precluded a priori sample size estimation; however, for planning, we estimated that we would need to conduct in-depth interviews with approximately 15–20 individuals before reaching a data saturation point. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that there were equal numbers across a range of state and non-state actors. Recruitment continued until saturation was reached.

Data collection

The ethnographic approach allows for utilization of a wide range of data collection and analytical methods [37]. In adopting this approach, we undertook the following activities: 1) reflective field notes, 2) primary qualitative data using semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs), and 3) memoranda to keep track of any emerging theoretical insights throughout the data collection process. Interviews were conducted in English, lasted approximately 90 minutes, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. The in-depth interview guide used in the study is included in S2 file and included questions on 1) the current priority for adolescent SRH in the health agenda of Kenya, 2) how adolescent SRH fits in the key health priorities for Kenya, 3) who is responsible for setting major national health policy and who holds significant influence over these decisions, 4) what sources within Kenya, if any, put pressure on policy makers to have them increase resource allocation for adolescent SRH, and 5) how adolescent SRH should be framed to political leaders in order to generate political support.

Data management and analysis

All interviews were conducted in a private location at the participant’s discretion by a trained and experienced qualitative researcher. Interview transcripts were transcribed by a professional transcriber prior to analysis. The interview transcripts were read and reread carefully to identify emerging codes and categories. In keeping with an ethnographic approach; data collection and analysis occurred concurrently and in an iterative manner. The data were analyzed using a theory-informed thematic analytical approach [38] using Dedoose qualitative software. Transcripts were coded paragraph by paragraph by two researchers. Consistency of coding between the two researchers was established by initially coding the same transcripts and through frequent discussion between coders until consistency was fully established. Emerging codes were clustered into themes guided by both the core concepts emerging out of the data [39] as well as literature, background reading, researchers’ experience in SRH policy making, and field notes from the reflective practice and memoranda. We employed a constant comparative approach and explored the relationships between the discussion of sensitive data and contextual situation [40]. An effort was made to ensure that the emergent codes and themes remained close to both the data and relevant literature. Throughout data collection and analysis, we practiced reflexivity by continually examining our own biases as former and existing members of the national adolescent technical working group, preferences, and theoretical perspectives and how those factors played a role in our understanding and interpretation of the processes and data we were analyzing [24].

Ethical considerations and protection of human subjects

The research was reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethics Review Unit (SERU Study 3738) at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and the Committee for Human Research of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). All participants provided written informed consent prior to the interview being conducted. The digital audio recording of the in-depth interviews were not initiated until after the informed consent process was complete, the participant had agreed to the recording, and any initial introductions that might include identifying information had been completed. Participants were not reimbursed for participating in the study.

Results

A total of 14 participants participated in this study (see Table 2 for institutional characteristics). The interviews took place between February 2019 and April 2019. The themes were clustered around the Shiffman and Smith framework domains. Below we highlight through rich narratives, the barriers and facilitators of generating political priority for adolescent SRH. Quotes were selected because they were typical across many persons interviewed. The listing of various IDIs before a verbatim quotation correspond to respondents who had similar views to the point being made.

Table 2

Institutional affiliations of subjects.

No.	Name	ID	Type of Actor
1.	Ministry of Health: Family planning program officer	Female	Government
2.	Ministry of Health: Family planning program manager	Male	Government
3.	United Nations Population Fund	Male	International Development Agency
4.	Population Council	Male	International NGO
5.	Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance	Male	Civil Society Organization
6.	Kenya Medical Training College, Nairobi	Female	Government (Ministry of Education)
7.	PATH international	Female	International NGO
8.	Inter Religious Council of Kenya	Male	Civil Society Organization
9.	Ministry of Youth and Gender	Female	Government
10.	National Council for Population and Development	Male	Government- State Corporation (Ministry of Devolution and Planning)
11.	National AIDS and STI Control Program	Female	Government (Ministry of Health)
12.	JHPIEGO	Female	International NGO
13.	Youth Counselor	Female	Youth representative
14.	National Organization of Peer Educators	Male	Civil Society Organization

Actor power

Actors influence the policy making process through their knowledge, experiences, beliefs and power[41]. Within Kenya, there is an extensive multi-sectoral network of actors ranging from local and national levels of government, non-governmental and civil society groups, as well as journalists, researchers and policy analysts. These actors are organized into several technical working groups and often chaired by Ministry of Health program managers. Within these technical working groups, the actors leverage their knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and power to adapt the international and regional norms and guidelines regarding adolescent SRH to Kenya (IDI_1, IDI_2, IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_6, IDI_7, IDI_10, and IDI_12).

…. There is a working group of family planning, another technical working group for adolescent sexual and reproductive health, another national working group for prevention of mother to child transmission [of HIV], a national working group for nutrition, a national working group for gender…These national working groups are comprised of up to 20-30-member stakeholders from different organizations. Some of the members are donors—USAID and the like, which is very strategic. Others are government line ministries that have an interest in that area and then civil society itself. All of us work. That is one of the places where we are able to influence policy. They [ministry of health] bring actors in that sector to bring their joint wisdom to the table and agree on what are the key priorities and what is it that we need to do for Kenya (International NGO; IDI_7).

However, as is often ubiquitous in the policy-making space, differential power existed. There was a perception that the domestication of international norms and guidelines for adolescent SRH was a donor-driven issue and did not reflect the actual priority of adolescent SRH. From the perspective of power theories, resources are an obvious source of dispositional power that the actors’ use during their interactions with government to influence what issue deserves funding and political attention [41, 42] (IDI_10, IDI_2, IDI_3, IDI_11, IDI_8).

The agenda is donor driven in that it is the donor who says that I have money for this component, so they will fund the component [that] their governments are supporting. If the government of America thinks that sexual reproductive health for young people is a priority, then they will come and say we have a basket here to support this. So it is not a need that is identified by the Kenyan youth, but it is a need that is identified by the donor (Faith-based organization; IDI_8).

The ability of domestic actors to influence political commitment mainly hinges on the degree of cohesion within the policy community [17, 18]. Respondents noted that despite agreement on adolescent SRH being a priority topic within the different technical working groups, different partners dictated what specific aspects of adolescent SRH were fundable. This tension resulted in fragmented, often conflicting, multi-sectoral approaches that paralyzed the execution of the very policies they championed (IDI_5, IDI_12, IDI_4, IDI_10).

… You know different donors and partners have different priorities, so you will get a donor who wants to support some programs, but they will support specific programs, for example, be it on women empowerment; some partners want to support areas of adolescent health, and they will tell you they want to support in this particular area, but if you go to other areas they will not support it. For example, the US is always very specific on the areas they want to support and if you don't go their way, then you lose the funding; so particular partners will support particular areas of health program priorities (State Corporation; IDI_10).

Globally, policy communities have been more effective where they have had policy champions or entrepreneurs to push for their agenda [17]. Policy entrepreneurs do the process of connecting the problem with a policy solution and the political factors. The entrepreneurs 1) highlight indicators of the problem to dramatize it, 2) Push for one kind of problem definition over another–invite policymakers to see for themselves, and 3) present specific policies as the solution to a problem on the agenda 4) “Soften up” by writing papers, giving testimony, holding hearings or getting press coverage [43]. However, given the lack of cohesion within the adolescent networks and the contentious nature of the adolescent SRH, none of the respondents identified a policy entrepreneur of adolescent SRH.

Ideas: Framing the problem

Frames are ideational lenses through which policy communities define problems and their potential solutions. A good frame is one that: 1) portrays the severity of the problem, 2) presents the problem as one which can be solved if attention is given, 3) demonstrates the adversity of non-intervention, and 4) is concerned with equality and the realization of human rights. Fundamentally, adolescent SRH policy community members in Kenya hold conflicting views concerning what age range comprises adolescents. Recent literature has highlighted this problem as well [44]. The United Nations has defined an adolescent as being between 10–19 years old. Invariably, the 10-year-old is still viewed as a child, while the 19-year-old as a young adult [44]. In addition, adolescents are a heterogeneous group whose needs differ by age, whether they are in school, living with parents, are married or have children of their own. Respondents highlighted that this issue had hamstrung the effectiveness of the policy community (IDI_2, IDI_5, IDI_11, IDI_3, IDI_6).

Sometimes we have the challenges when it comes to the definition of who is a young person, who is an adolescent? That definition is bringing a lot of problems in this country where even among the stakeholders and policymakers, it is not easy for them to agree on the classification of who is an adolescent? Who is a young person? (Civil Society Organisation; IDI_5).

Inherent in defining the adolescent as a child is that they should not be engaging in sex [45, 46]. While many acknowledged the magnitude of teenage pregnancy, early marriage, female genital mutilation, and HIV, some members felt that the issue regarding pregnancy was one of individual self-agency and not an issue that required political attention (IDI_1, IDI_2, IDI_3, IDI_5, IDI_6, IDI_8, IDI_I0, IDI_11).

It is a tricky question. I think the first thing is that these are adolescents; people don't believe that…like let us now say teenage pregnancy, as an adolescent, why in the first, should you be getting pregnant? People would be thinking that you have now started investing more in life [sex] then the adolescents will think it is normal. That is why you are finding various groups do not want the issue of comprehensive sexuality education in the school because it is like we are encouraging it; it is like a normal thing. So I think that both culturally and religiously, there is that feeling that if you invest more [in comprehensive sexuality education] then, they will now know that it is their right (State Corporation; IDI_I0).

Respondents bemoaned the fact that political leaders primarily focused and financed other health issues, such as HIV, malaria, and maternal and child mortality, which have political and emotional appeal that adolescent pregnancy does not have (IDI_1, IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_5, IDI_6, IDI_8, IDI_11).

Those areas [infectious diseases] are well resourced because of the challenge of how infectious diseases affect everyone in the community. When it comes to SRH, they will only affect that small cohort, although now, because of the realization that HIV is common and highly prevalent within this group, they are trying to do something about it. But because of the perception of it as being “your own problem”, it is not seen as the problem of the whole society, you are left with your teenage pregnancy. But when it comes to infection, then everybody cares about it (International NGO; IDI_4).

The challenge in arriving at an acceptable framing can be attributed to the multi-sectoral nature of adolescence. The adolescent in general, cuts across national, community, household, and individual boundaries. While this produces a large network of collaborators, on the downside, it generates difficulties in consensus and definitions of problems and an external position that can generate political support. Members of the adolescent SRH community expressed challenges in framing the issue in a way that did not alienate one or more stakeholder groups (IDI_1, IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_5, IDI_7, IDI_8, IDI_9).

When you frame it [adolescent SRH] in the context of population, politicians are not interested. They want numbers; they want people to have many children, which is completely contrary. The current formula for funding for counties is population-based. So it has actually worked against us. So, we are learning that may be the way to frame it—is to talk about healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy. You want to frame it in a manner that doesn’t create the impression of you controlling numbers. You want to talk about unintended pregnancy so that the church doesn’t have a problem with you. It is not just the politicians; the faith-based groups also have a problem with the way you frame it. So you want to frame it in non-threatening language, but you still get the message across. You want to talk about waiting to get pregnant, in Turkana, that is what they say; the groups that work there. They say that they do not talk about family planning because young people are not planning families; they definitely do not want to have children at that age, and they just want to live their lives and have fun and do all the things that young people do. Having a family is not one of the things they are planning. So the word family planning in relation to young people is a misnomer. So you can talk of contraception, you can talk of healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy, or you can talk of waiting to get pregnant (International NGO; IDI_ 7).

The inability to advance a cohesive public positioning of a problem often translates into disagreements over which priority interventions are acceptable [6, 47]. Generally, in order to achieve political support for any policy, there must be a coupling of a well-defined problem with a proposal of a solution that is perceived as technically feasible, compatible with policymaker’s values, reasonable in cost, and appealing to the public [47, 48] (IDI_1, IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_7, IDI_9, IDI_12).

Generally, the community recognizes the burden or the challenge caused by some of the issues in terms of adolescent sexual reproductive health. However, some of the interventions are not generally accepted at the community level. They recognize the challenge, but when you try to introduce this, then they say, “We are against this." There is an outcry about teenage pregnancy, for example. The community will say that teenage pregnancy is high, but they will not generally accept access to information and services (comprehensive sexuality education in the school) to favour the young people (International Development Agency; IDI_3).

Issue characteristics

Several issue characteristics add complexity to the political prioritization of adolescent SRH. First, is social construction: how political stakeholders view a target population in terms of its ability to exercise political will through voting and generating wealth to support these efforts. Schneider and Ingram, posit that the design, selection, and implementation of a public policy aimed at addressing a social issue can be linked to the social construction of the target population of that policy[49]. In Kenya, the age one can get an identity card, get a job and also vote is 18 years. Adolescents, who are below the age of 18 are seen as dependents and not wielding any political power that can benefit politicians and public officers and as such their issues are marginalized and are often not heard or represented in agenda setting fora (IDI_3, IDI_5, IDI_6).

…The youth may not command a strong hearing politically up there. High offices are mainly the old people. The youth may not have a say because they do not have the capacity to demand for their rights. They are busy building a career. They are still in school so that time to really lobby to advocate for their rights is not there and the person with the power to make decisions are the older people (Ministry of Education; IDI_6).

Indicators and data play an essential role in determining priorities [6]. Until recently, sex and age disaggregated program data were often not available in national and sub-national information systems for the adolescent cohort [50]. One respondent noted that the challenge with getting adolescent-specific data was because adolescent SRH outcomes could fit into many different and sometimes concurrent categories.

Adolescents are crosscutting. You find adolescents who are living with HIV, you find adolescents who are pregnant, and you find adolescents who are married. You find them across different categories… it is crosscutting (International NGO; IDI_7).

Respondents noted that data were available at both national and subnational levels. Predominant adolescent SRH indicators of interest included: 1) HIV incidence and prevalence, 2) maternal mortality, 3) condom use, and 4) education attainment. However there were three main issues: 1) data collected routinely through the District Health Information System were of questionable quality, 2) there was a lack of capacity or willingness to use data for decision making, and, 3) the incidence and prevalence of various adolescent SRH outcomes were not perceived to be severe enough (IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_6, IDI_7, IDI_8, IDI_12, IDI_14).

I think the data is available, but the extent to which we actually analyse the data and use it for decision making; I don’t think we have mastered that skill yet as a country because data is entered within computer systems; it might not be accurate as well because we have a limited capacity in the people who handle that data and a lot more needs to be done to increase supportive supervision. But, even when we have that data, we don’t use it to decide on the priority needs for the areas (International NGO; IDI_12).

With regards to interventions, nearly all respondents mentioned that youth-friendly services were the solution, and, indeed, a national guideline on how to provide youth-friendly services was being developed. The Ministry of Youth noted that it had set up youth-friendly centers. However, respondents noted that youth were not involved in the design, that no local evidence had been considered, that the intervention had not been optimized for adolescents, and that programs needed to be designed with users in mind (IDI_1, IDI_4, IDI_6, IDI_13, IDI_14).

If I were a pregnant teenager, I would probably queue in the antenatal clinic with other mothers. I wouldn't go to the youth-friendly centre where they will see I am a mother and so forth. So how do we take care of this service model for various cohorts or various needs? I think that is where the challenge lies. And the reason for failure to optimize the services for young people is actually because resources are not there. People have not been able to invest much more in that. Two, we have jumped into the bandwagon of the youth-friendly services and run with it without understanding other ways we can improve on it and make it work better. . . . I guess what I am trying to suggest is that there are ways we can improve the service delivery, but it is not cut and paste (International NGO; IDI_4).

When you interview the young people, they say that they want their own youth-friendly services. Currently, the youth-friendly services are only at 10%. That is what they prefer, but again, when you do further research, some of them want the services integrated (Ministry of Health; IDI_1).

Political contexts

The political environment in which the adolescent SRH advocates operate was not conducive to sustained prioritization of adolescent SRH. The 5-year electoral cycle meant that the political environment was continually changing and adolescent SRH kept falling in and out of favor depending on the incumbent's political party. Most politicians were guided by their own cultural or religious beliefs and the desire to remain in power and thus avoided the controversies clouding adolescent SRH (IDI_5, IDI_6, IDI_7, IDI_8, IDI_9).

…Another problem that we have as a country is whereby I’m Governor Rose; I would say this is the direction we are taking as a country; this is our CIDP [County Integrated Development Plan], and we’ve agreed this is the direction we are taking. Governor Florence comes in and feels like those projections you’ve made and all that are Rose’s and now we are going to use mine, so there is no continuity, there is no buying of what had been initially planned as much as the community had adopted it, and maybe, there was even community participation, but now you have to have fresh community participation [engagement] forums (Ministry of Youth and Gender; IDI_9).

Partly as a result of this 5-yearly electoral cycle there were very few policy windows that opened in which policy prioritization for adolescent SRH could occur. A recent surge in pregnant teenagers sitting for their primary school examinations was a potential policy window but, in the absence of policy entrepreneurs and data, the opportunity was missed (IDI_2, IDI_4, IDI_9, IDI_11, IDI_12).

…For instance, it was just the other day, we were talking about pregnancies; alarmed that so many girls are giving birth during the [National] exams and all that…In November/December last year, everyone was talking about adolescent pregnancies, and we would even ask who made the girls pregnant; some would say the boda-boda [motorycycle taxi drivers] people are responsible, some would say they are the older men, some would say they are the teachers and term it as transactional sex. But from there, what happened? Nothing. We are waiting for another November/December, which is just less than six months away, to start again crying…That girl who gave birth at that time again she will be either pregnant or is already pregnant. She will get pregnant this April (Ministry of Youth; IDI_9).

Despite numerous guidelines and published road maps, there was no political commitment or reliable mechanism to earmark funds for adolescent SRH and to account for it (IDI_3, IDI_5, IDI_6, IDI_7, IDI_10).

Resource allocation is hard. From the programs, we will collect data through the DHIS [District Health Information System] even through the facilities. Then, it goes to the headquarters’ Ministry of Health but for it to be funded through the treasury. The money [from treasury] will not come [be allocated] because malaria was high in Kilifi or Homa Bay; that now you will get more funding because of that, no. They do not use data so that they can give finances. They just allocate, general allocation for the roads, for the schools, for the health sector, for agriculture; it is all lumped together (Ministry of Health; IDI_1).

Moreover, even though adolescent SRH had been incorporated into nearly all line ministries including labour, agriculture and education, some ministries lacked the know-how to implement or enforce some of the recommendations unless they were clearly aligned with the primary scope of the particular minister’s office (IDI_1, IDI_3, IDI_4, IDI_7, IDI_9, IDI_12).

I am in the youth sector. Were it not for my own interest in matters of health, I would not know so much. For example, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture both have ways on how they can integrate [adolescent SRH] into their programs that are targeting youth. Then, let us look at the gender sector—they have people, but what is their level of understanding? …How do they [Ministry of Health] build the capacity of other sectors to understand, especially those who have a direct link or correlation with adolescent SRH and build their capacity to better understand matters of adolescent SRH and so they work together? You can go to the agriculture ministry and start telling them to integrate adolescent SRH only for them to ask you what it means. How do you mix sex issues with agriculture? There are some people who are not interested in all that—they only know of animal husbandry or plant husbandry, if there is anything like that. The other things, they have no interest about, and yet you have to integrate them and indirectly these are human resources, aren't they? (International NGO; IDI_12).

Ultimately, the lack of cohesion among the network of adolescent stakeholders, their differential powers coupled with the absence of a clear public framing of the problem, lack of nuanced and credible adolescent metrics and the lack of policy (individual and institutional) entrepreneurs, manifested in having multiple editions and revisions of guidelines and policies on paper, but for which there was no tangible implementation (IDI_2, IDI_I7, IDI_11, IDI_12).

Kenya is one country that has guidelines and policies for everything: adolescent health, family planning, HIV/AIDS, prevention of mother to child transmission. It is not the lack of documentation, meaning that we have sat and thought about it more than once. In many cases, when you look at the documents in the ministry of health libraries, you will find that it is onto the third version of the document. We are onto our second adolescent sexual and reproductive health guidelines and the second version of adolescent sexual and reproductive health policy. So it means that people have thought about it. Even when you look at vision 2030, when you look at the government pillars, health is one of them… So, I do not think it is the lack of people talking, thinking, planning, and documenting (International NGO; IDI_7).

Discussion

An analysis of actor power, ideas and framing, issue characteristics, and political contexts reveals that the level of political priority for adolescent SRH in Kenya remains low. The adolescent SRH actors use two main approaches to influence the national political systems: promotion of norms and inducements using financial and technical assistance [6, 51]. This collective action has resulted in the integration of adolescent SRH into national policy documents and guidelines across different sectors, such as education, youth, health, and agriculture. However, the presence of normative guidance in the form of national policy documents and guidelines has not always promoted political priority nor deliberate action that advances a shared agenda [52]. Within the life cycle model of how norms advance through a system to become an established priority, it is possible for some norms to be internalized and taken for granted to the extent that they are no longer discussed as an issue [53]. This appears to be the case in Kenya, in which adolescent SRH guidelines are into their second and third editions, with no notable prioritization or advancement of the proposed agenda reflected in previous editions of the guidelines.

Specific to actor power, there were many different actors from diverse sectors involved in deliberations regarding what is necessary in the field. In general, diverse, heterogeneous networks, such as those seen in the fields of tuberculosis and tobacco, are beneficial in enhancing the collective understanding of a problem, its solutions and its prioritization [54, 55]. However, this diversity can also hamper cohesion and agreement on what are the main priorities [56]. In this study, beyond the collective acknowledgment that adolescent SRH was a problem, there was no coherence in what was to be funded, supported with technical resources, or prioritized. Dominant actors supported only programs and projects that fit their agendas and vision, rather than considering the actual needs of the country. Unchecked, this imbalance in decision-making power, often leads to a vicious cycle of duplication, competition, and siloing of services, which weakens the health infrastructure [57]. This, in turn, undermines the prioritization of adolescent SRH by the public and by politicians.

There were important divisions within the policy community in framing adolescent SRH as a problem. Generating consensus on the internal and external framing of a problem and its solutions is critical in generating political support and governance [58]. Internal framing has to do with how the community of adolescent SRH policy actors defines the problem, while external framing refers to how this network portrays the problem to an external audience [6]. Existing framings centre on adolescent SRH as a health issue that needs prevention and treatment, a private issue that requires individual agency, or an economic concern that drains public resources. One challenge in arriving at a cohesive framing is whether adolescents are children or young adults. Crafting a policy requires nuance that takes into account these potential differences given that what a stakeholder might advocate for a 10-year old is not necessarily the same as for a 19 year old. At the political level, politicians, who are often risk-averse, may be hesitant to engage with controversial issues when there are other problems with safer and popular solutions. In Kenya, this controversy has resulted in adolescent issues being integrated in maternal and child health. Unfortunately, this integration makes it easy for actors to “pass the buck” to other external actors and assume that they will handle the problem [59]. Throughout the 1990’s, this similar lack of clarity in framing and back-passing contributed to the neglect of newborn survival as a priority issue as it was traditionally sandwiched into maternal and child health agendas. Ultimately newborn survival gained priority when stakeholders agreed to disentangle the newborn from the child and the mother as a distinct group and when stakeholders with interests beyond the health field started to engage with the issue. [60]

To realize the SRH wellbeing of adolescents and to protect their human rights, countries need to adopt holistic interventions that address adolescents’ fully lived realities, rather than one-dimensional approaches or trickle down interventions that appear to be reactive rather than proactive, such as providing free maternal health care after girls are already pregnant. In the interviews, several actors mentioned that it was anticipated that the benefits of improving, for example, skilled attendance at birth and contraceptive access would trickle down to improve the delivery outcomes among adolescents, instead of primary prevention of the pregnancy in the first place. Adolescent SRH can learn from the maternal health networks, which emerged from near neglect in years before 2000 to a heightened transformative political priority attracting resource commitments in the early 2000s with the advent of the millennium development goals (MDGs). Policy scholars posit that maternal health, unlike other aspects of women’s health, gained political priority in part because after many years of disagreement key actors finally agreed on a singular objective with a defined set of feasible solutions, i.e., to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015 from 1990 levels and a set of solutions that included access to emergency obstetric care and skilled attendance at birth [61]. Adolescent SRH on the other hand was only partially operationalized in the MDG by the indicator “adolescent birth rate” which tells an incomplete story [61]. Going forward, we posit that embedding adolescent-specific SRH metrics into popular international norms such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs) can trigger action and innovation towards improving adolescent SRH in Kenya. We suggest use of metrics that politicians can understand, metrics that not only measure health outcomes but also economic costs, such as cost of mortality averted or morbidity or the losses made, and how cost-effective the interventions can be.

The nature of the affected target group, coupled with the lack of credible indicators, data on its severity, and effective interventions, can significantly hamper the prioritization of an issue. To start with, a major deterrent to political attention to adolescent SRH is related to the social construction of the population. Political prioritization is more likely to emerge when the population affected wields political power (ability to vote), generates sympathy, such as children, or can mobilize itself, such as persons living with HIV and AIDS. Political prioritization may also be more likely if the problem causes high morbidity and mortality or social disruption, such as maternal health. Unfortunately, until recently in many African countries, there was a paucity of data and specific indicators on SRH behaviors of adolescents, the health and economic consequences of those behaviors, service and information needs, and effective interventions. Neonatal mortality is a good example of an issue which was neglected up to early 2000s, in part because existing vital registration systems in developing countries under-reported neonatal deaths, and it was perceived that expensive high-class interventions were necessary to ameliorate the situation. It was only when the World Health Organization released the first global estimates indicating that more than 5 million neonates had died in 1995 that priority for neonatal mortality begun to emerge [60]. Presently, there is a considerable movement to disaggregate data for adolescents by age, sex, national and sub-national levels. Kenyan actors boasted of collecting a broad range of data. This data could be critical for incentivizing actors from different sectors to form stronger collaborations and better quantification of the scope and severity of adolescent SRH. However, for political attention to be gained, there must be a coupling of the adolescent SRH problem with well-defined, feasible, cost-effective, and acceptable solutions. Although majority of the respondents talked of provision of youth friendly services as a key intervention, its implementation had not been optimized for the adolescents. Existing reviews of what works for adolescents have frequently highlighted that effective interventions for adolescent SRH often fail or have transient effects because they are delivered ineffectively e.g. through the stand alone youth centers described by respondents, or are delivered piecemeal or with inadequate dosage[62]. In re-positioning neonatal mortality, actors had to frame it as a high-burden problem with low-technology community solutions [60]. As one respondent mentioned, within a multi-cultural and heavily “religious” context in countries such as Kenya, a simple cut and paste of interventions from other regions will not have traction with the political class that is trying to please the electorate and stay in power.

Even though policy makers may recognize the existence, severity, and repercussions of poor adolescent SRH outcomes, many policy makers are often distracted by a myriad of issues and have limited resources to deal with them alongside other conflicting political priorities. In 2015, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimated that nearly 20% of the SRH budget in Africa was donor funded [63]. While donor funding has indeed catalyzed the recognition of adolescent SRH as a problem, the fact that it is predominantly from international organizations delegitimizes the importance of prioritizing it in Kenya [56]. Additionally, some of the external funding is sectoral in nature and hampers collaboration. The government of Kenya has integrated "youth" into nearly all its ministries. While this is in line with international norms, it has brought about tension within the different ministries resulting in non-performance or duplication of efforts and overall inefficiency. These challenges have also been seen within the early childhood development networks, which often cut across the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Gender, and the Ministry of Social Welfare [58]. The downside is that, although formally there is a plurality of line ministries concerned with adolescent SRH, no institutional leader, who can champion the adolescent SRH agenda across a wide variety of ministries, has emerged.

The study limitations deserve mention. One limitation of the study is that we used purposive sampling, and study participants also helped to identify other potential participants. We acknowledge that in giving the study participants this “gatekeeping role” we might have shaped the type of participants enrolled into the study, for example, by selecting potential participants who were better known. To mitigate this, we limited the role of enrolled participants in identifying only those participants who met the eligibility criteria regardless of their relationship and engagement with them. Secondly, interviews were conducted exclusively with national level stakeholders, therefore, sub-national variations in political prioritization in the devolved counties may not be adequately represented. The Shiffman and Smith framework does not address the problem of non-implementation of the policy once it has been legislated; however, it does provide the opportunity to highlight areas that can be used to raise the profile of a condition to an actionable problem.

Conclusion

Despite a surge in interest in adolescent SRH by the global community, nations such as Kenya still fail to translate this issue into consistent political prioritization. In order for adolescent SRH to gain traction within the national political system, there is an urgent need for policy actors to use their technical and financial resources to create a more cohesive community of advocates across sectors and to develop a clear problem definition of adolescent SRH and a public positioning of the matter. This might require a compromise in the public positioning as well as range of proposed solutions to ensure that they are both palatable to the political system and thus increase tractability of adolescent SRH. There is also a need to identify and nurture individuals and national institutions that can act as policy entrepreneurs to facilitate the coupling of the problem of adolescent SRH with potential solutions when windows of opportunity arise. In addition, non-governmental donors can increase their legitimacy as actors in the adolescent SRH space by creatively sharing their authority and control of resources with national governments.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist.

S1 File.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Semi-structured interview guide.

S2 File.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

29 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-27067

Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Onono,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors examine the factors responsible for lack of political prioritization of adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service provision in Kenya. The paper is generally well written and addresses an important topic. I, however, have the following comments for the authors to consider to further improve it:

1) Study setting (page 6):

a) The authors start by arguing that Kenya has shown leadership in adopting international policies and legal frameworks on adolescent SRH (first two statements). However, the examples they give in the third statement are mostly national policies except the Maputo Protocol. Given the framing of the argument, one would expect that they give examples of the international and regional policies and legal frameworks which Kenya has adopted. They should then follow this with examples of national policies that have been informed by those international instruments in a logical sequence.

b) Last statement: Change “HIV-related deaths in Kenya” at the end of the statement to “HIV-related deaths in the country” to avoid unnecessary repetition of “Kenya” in the statement. Also, provide a citation for the statement as it quotes numbers that are not from the authors’ own research.

2) Theoretical underpinning, second statement (page 7): Change “in low-resource setting countries” to “in low-resource settings” for the statement to read well.

3) Recruitment (pages 7-8):

a) First paragraph, second statement (page 7): Change “various relevancies” to “following criteria”, and delete “by” before “names” for the statement to read well.

b) First paragraph, last statement (page 8): Insert “policy” between “SRH” and “making” for the statement to read well.

4) Data collection (page 8):

a) Third statement, point #2: Change “how adolescent SRH fit in with the key” to “how adolescent SRH fits in the key” for it to read well.

b) Third statement, point #4: The argument seems to connote that pressure put on policy makers made them increase resource allocation for adolescent SRH when no evidence has been provided to that effect. Perhaps the authors should consider rephrasing it to something like, “what sources within Kenya, if any, put pressure on policy makers to have them increase resource allocation for adolescent SRH” so that it is clear that the pressure is to make policy makers increase rather than that it made them increase resources.

5) Data management and analysis (page 9):

a) Eighth statement: The authors state that emerging codes were clustered into themes guided, in part, by researchers’ values? What were these values and how did they influence coding of emerging themes?

b) Last statement: Delete “Finally” from the statement as this is not the last thing we are reading in the paper.

6) Ideas: Framing the problem (pages 13-17):

a) First paragraph, third statement (page 13): Change “comprises being an adolescent” to “comprises adolescents”.

b) Second quote (page 14): Did the participant refer to “comprehensive sexual education” or this is an artifact of transcription given that it should be “comprehensive sexuality education”? If it was the participant’s mistake, then we need to add “[sic]” at the end of the word to show that the mistake was not the authors’. The gist of the argument in the quote is also not clear. I thought most investments are to prevent unintended pregnancy among adolescents. If that is the case, how can that make pregnancy be seen as normal?

c) Third paragraph (page 14): Delete “yet” from the statement for the statement to read well.

d) Last quote (page 17): The same comment regarding “comprehensive sexual education” applies here.

7) Issue characteristics (pages 17-20):

a) Third paragraph and the subsequent quote (page 18): Delete “lastly” from the point #2 of the last statement in the paragraph since this is not the last thing we are reading in the paper. The edits aside, there is need for being specific here when referring to data of questionable quality (both in the paragraph and the subsequent quote). We have data on adolescent SRH indicators from standardized national surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and from facilities mostly through the District Health Information System (DHIS). If we talk about poor quality data, which specific sources are we referring to?

b) Fourth paragraph (page 19): Change “was in development” in the first statement to “was being developed”. That aside, what was the authors’ take on most participants’ views on youth-friendly services vis-à-vis the evidence that such interventions are not effective in improving adolescent SRH? (See, for instance, Chandra-Mouli V, Lane C, Wong S. What Does Not Work in Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Evidence on Interventions Commonly Accepted as Best Practices. Global Health: Science and Practice, 2015, 3(3):333-340).

c) Fourth quote (page 19): I did not understand what the participant meant by the statement, “And the reason is failure to optimize the services for young people, is actually because resources are not there.”

8) Political contexts (pages 20-23):

a) First quote (page 20): It is not clear what the participant meant by the phrase, “but now you have to fresh community participation forums”.

b) Fourth paragraph (page 22): Change “lacked the know how of how to implement” to “lacked the know-how to implement”.

9) Discussion (pages 23-29):

a) Third paragraph (pages 25-26): Change “10year” in the sixth statement to “10-year”, delete “issue” from the end of the ninth statement to avoid unnecessary repetition of the same word, and rephrase the last statement to read: “Ultimately, newborn survival gained priority when …”

b) Fourth paragraph (pages 26-27): Delete “a” before “trickle down” in the first statement for it to read well. Rephrase the second part of the third statement to read: “which emerged from near neglect in years before 2000 to a heightened transformative political priority attracting resource commitments …” Also, change “was able to gain” in the fourth statement to “gained”, and “they finally agreed” to “key actors finally agreed” since it was not clear what “they” here referred to.

c) Fifth paragraph (pages 27-28): Rephrase the fifth statement to read: “Unfortunately, until recently in many African countries, there was a paucity of data and specific indicators on adolescent SRH behaviors, …”

d) Last paragraph (page 29): The fifth statement needs to be appropriately formatted i.e. “In addition, interviews …” In its current format, the word “interviews” seems to start a new statement. Also, delete “lastly” from the last statement. Instead, the statement can be rephrased to something like, “The Shiffman and Smith framework also does not address …” so that it seamlessly flows from the preceding statement.

10) Conclusion (page 30):

a) First statement: Change “are still failing” to “still fail”.

b) Fourth statement: Change “are able to” to “can”.

c) Last statement: Delete “Lastly” from the statement. The statement can instead be rephrased to something like, “In addition, non-governmental donors can …”

11) Abstract (page 2):

a) Methods: Include the sample size and dates of data collection in the methods section of the abstract e.g. “We undertook semi-structured interviews with 14 members of adolescent SRH networks between February and April 2019 …” The authors should note that abstracts should be framed in such a way that they can stand alone independent of the full paper.

b) Findings, sixth statement: Change “sectorial” to “sectoral” i.e. pertaining to different sectors.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for inviting me to review this interesting manuscript, which focuses on prioritization of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya. It makes several findings that are quite revealing, including the lack of coordination among the civil society groups working in the space of adolescent SRH. I suggest minor revisions, which I outline in the comments to authors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Nov 2019

31 October 2019

Thank you for your time and careful review of our manuscript “PONE-D-19-27067 Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study.” We deeply appreciate the feedback from the reviewers.

We have addressed your comments in the revised manuscript and have detailed our responses to each point below (in blue font).

Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this revised manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. If there is any additional information or details about the study that I can provide, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Authors

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors examine the factors responsible for lack of political prioritization of adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service provision in Kenya. The paper is generally well written and addresses an important topic. I, however, have the following comments for the authors to consider to further improve it:

1) Study setting (page 6):

a) The authors start by arguing that Kenya has shown leadership in adopting international policies and legal frameworks on adolescent SRH (first two statements). However, the examples they give in the third statement are mostly national policies except the Maputo Protocol. Given the framing of the argument, one would expect that they give examples of the international and regional policies and legal frameworks which Kenya has adopted. They should then follow this with examples of national policies that have been informed by those international instruments in a logical sequence.

Thank you for this direction. We have edited the section and given examples of the international and regional policies in a sequential manner. The section now reads

“At a global level these include the 1994 United Nations at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)[26], the 2002 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children of 2002[27]; the Committee of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Comment no. 4 of 2003[28]; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[29] and the international Sustainable Development Goals at a global level[30]. At a regional level, in Africa, Kenya has adopted the Maputo Protocol [31] and the Common Africa Position (CAP) on the Post-2015 development agenda[32]. Locally the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, National Youth Policy (2007) and the National Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy (2015) all emphasize this commitment.”

b) Last statement: Change “HIV-related deaths in Kenya” at the end of the statement to “HIV-related deaths in the country” to avoid unnecessary repetition of “Kenya” in the statement. Also, provide a citation for the statement as it quotes numbers that are not from the authors’ own research.

Thank you, we have edited to read “HIV-related deaths in the country”. We also provide a citation for this data

2) Theoretical underpinning, second statement (page 7): Change “in low-resource setting countries” to “in low-resource settings” for the statement to read well.

This has been edited to “in low-resource settings”

3) Recruitment (pages 7-8):

a) First paragraph, second statement (page 7): Change “various relevancies” to “following criteria”, and delete “by” before “names” for the statement to read well.

This has been edited

b) First paragraph, last statement (page 8): Insert “policy” between “SRH” and “making” for the statement to read well.

This has been edited

4) Data collection (page 8):

a) Third statement, point #2: Change “how adolescent SRH fit in with the key” to “how adolescent SRH fits in the key” for it to read well.

This has been edited

b) Third statement, point #4: The argument seems to connote that pressure put on policy makers made them increase resource allocation for adolescent SRH when no evidence has been provided to that effect. Perhaps the authors should consider rephrasing it to something like, “what sources within Kenya, if any, put pressure on policy makers to have them increase resource allocation for adolescent SRH” so that it is clear that the pressure is to make policy makers increase rather than that it made them increase resources.

This has been edited

5) Data management and analysis (page 9):

a) Eighth statement: The authors state that emerging codes were clustered into themes guided, in part, by researchers’ values? What were these values and how did they influence coding of emerging themes?

We have clarified that its not so much values but our experiences in this field. As disclosed in the paper and in the COREQ statement, some of the researchers had been a part of the national adolescent technical working group. During coding and analysis—we purposely selected an analyst who did not have this kind of experience so as to balance out our biases. In page 10, the first paragraph, we state that “Throughout data collection and analysis, we practiced reflexivity by continually examining our own biases as former and existing members of the national adolescent technical working group, preferences, and theoretical perspectives and how those factors played a role in our understanding and interpretation of the processes and data we were analyzing [24].”

b) Last statement: Delete “Finally” from the statement as this is not the last thing we are reading in the paper.

This has been edited

6) Ideas: Framing the problem (pages 13-17):

a) First paragraph, third statement (page 13): Change “comprises being an adolescent” to “comprises adolescents”.

This has been edited

b) Second quote (page 14): Did the participant refer to “comprehensive sexual education” or this is an artifact of transcription given that it should be “comprehensive sexuality education”? If it was the participant’s mistake, then we need to add “[sic]” at the end of the word to show that the mistake was not the authors’. The gist of the argument in the quote is also not clear. I thought most investments are to prevent unintended pregnancy among adolescents. If that is the case, how can that make pregnancy be seen as normal?

This is a transcription error and should read “comprehensive sexuality education”

The gist of this quote is that 1) people do not believe adolescents should be having sex and that any “attention/investment” in SRH (comprehensive sexuality education) for adolescents is a license to increase sexual activity among adolescents.

c) Third paragraph (page 14): Delete “yet” from the statement for the statement to read well.

This has been edited

d) Last quote (page 17): The same comment regarding “comprehensive sexual education” applies here.

This has been edited

7) Issue characteristics (pages 17-20):

a) Third paragraph and the subsequent quote (page 18): Delete “lastly” from the point #2 of the last statement in the paragraph since this is not the last thing we are reading in the paper. The edits aside, there is need for being specific here when referring to data of questionable quality (both in the paragraph and the subsequent quote). We have data on adolescent SRH indicators from standardized national surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and from facilities mostly through the District Health Information System (DHIS). If we talk about poor quality data, which specific sources are we referring to?

This has been edited. The reference here for poor quality data was to the locally collected data in the health facilities through the DHIS. We have edited this statement to read “data collected routinely through the District Health Information System were of questionable quality”

b) Fourth paragraph (page 19): Change “was in development” in the first statement to “was being developed”. This has been edited

That aside, what was the authors’ take on most participants’ views on youth-friendly services vis-à-vis the evidence that such interventions are not effective in improving adolescent SRH? (See, for instance, Chandra-Mouli V, Lane C, Wong S. What Does Not Work in Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Evidence on Interventions Commonly Accepted as Best Practices. Global Health: Science and Practice, 2015, 3(3):333-340). Thank you for this reference. Although the concept of implementing youth friendly services as an intervention has been shown as effective, the manner in which in which it was implemented was as stand alone youth centers and has continued to lack all the 4 elements that Chandra-Mouli et al say comprise youth friendly services. Within the discussion section we have added our thoughts as follows

“Although majority of the respondents talked of provision of youth friendly services as a key intervention, its implementation had not been optimized for the adolescents. Existing reviews of what works for adolescents have frequently highlighted that effective interventions for adolescent SRH often fail or have transient effects because they are delivered ineffectively e.g. through the stand alone youth centers described by respondents, or are delivered piecemeal or with inadequate dosage[61].”

c) Fourth quote (page 19): I did not understand what the participant meant by the statement, “And the reason is failure to optimize the services for young people, is actually because resources are not there.” The respondent was frustrated. Implementing the youth friendly services means that 1) providers are trained to provide friendly and non-judgmental services to adolescents; 2) the health facility setting is welcoming; 3) adolescents are made aware through outreach activities about the availability of services; and 4) the larger community is supportive of provision of services to adolescents. All these require financial, infrastructural and human resource that was limited and perhaps, there was a need to “Tweak” the model for the setting as opposed to implementing it ineffectively or at inadequate dosage as Chandra-Mouli et al say in the reference provided. The next quote shows that only 10% of the services provide youth friendly services and the existing model was actually closer to youth centers than to what is envisioned in the classic youth friendly service model.

8) Political contexts (pages 20-23):

a) First quote (page 20): It is not clear what the participant meant by the phrase, “but now you have to fresh community participation forums”.

Means community engagement. I have included this in parenthesis

b) Fourth paragraph (page 22): Change “lacked the know how of how to implement” to “lacked the know-how to implement”.

This has been edited

9) Discussion (pages 23-29):

a) Third paragraph (pages 25-26): Change “10year” in the sixth statement to “10-year”, delete “issue” from the end of the ninth statement to avoid unnecessary repetition of the same word, and rephrase the last statement to read: “Ultimately, newborn survival gained priority when …”

This has been edited

b) Fourth paragraph (pages 26-27): Delete “a” before “trickle down” in the first statement for it to read well. Rephrase the second part of the third statement to read: “which emerged from near neglect in years before 2000 to a heightened transformative political priority attracting resource commitments …” Also, change “was able to gain” in the fourth statement to “gained”, and “they finally agreed” to “key actors finally agreed” since it was not clear what “they” here referred to.

This has been edited

c) Fifth paragraph (pages 27-28): Rephrase the fifth statement to read: “Unfortunately, until recently in many African countries, there was a paucity of data and specific indicators on adolescent SRH behaviors, …”

This has been edited

d) Last paragraph (page 29): The fifth statement needs to be appropriately formatted i.e. “In addition, interviews …” In its current format, the word “interviews” seems to start a new statement. Also, delete “lastly” from the last statement. Instead, the statement can be rephrased to something like, “The Shiffman and Smith framework also does not address …” so that it seamlessly flows from the preceding statement.

This has been edited and now reads, “Secondly, interviews were conducted exclusively with national level stakeholders, therefore, sub-national variations in political prioritization in the devolved counties may not be adequately represented. The Shiffman and Smith framework…..”

10) Conclusion (page 30):

a) First statement: Change “are still failing” to “still fail”. This has been edited

b) Fourth statement: Change “are able to” to “can”. This has been edited

c) Last statement: Delete “Lastly” from the statement. The statement can instead be rephrased to something like, “In addition, non-governmental donors can …” This has been edited

11) Abstract (page 2):

a) Methods: Include the sample size and dates of data collection in the methods section of the abstract e.g. “We undertook semi-structured interviews with 14 members of adolescent SRH networks between February and April 2019 …” The authors should note that abstracts should be framed in such a way that they can stand alone independent of the full paper. This has been edited

b) Findings, sixth statement: Change “sectorial” to “sectoral” i.e. pertaining to different sectors. This has been edited

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for inviting me to review this interesting manuscript, which focuses on prioritization of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya. It makes several findings that are quite revealing, including the lack of coordination among the civil society groups working in the space of adolescent SRH. I suggest minor revisions, which I outline in the comments to authors.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

14 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-27067R1

Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Onono,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the issues raised by reviewers. There are, however, a few editorial corrections to make. These include:

1) Study setting, second statement (page 6): Rephrase to read: “At the global level, these include …” Also, delete “of 2002” at the end of the UN General Assembly on Special Session on Children, and “at a global level” at the end of the statement since it is unnecessary repetition of the phrase used at the beginning.

2) Study setting, third statement (page 6): Rephrase to read: “At the global level …” and delete one “the” after “adopted” to avoid unnecessary repetition.

3) Study setting, fourth statement (page 6): Insert “the” before “National Youth Policy” for the statement to read well.

4) Ideas: Framing the problem, second quote (pages 14-15): Based on the authors’ response to earlier comment regarding the clarity of the quote, they need to add “[comprehensive sexuality education]” in brackets as shown after “invest more” so that it is clear that the participant was referring to investing in comprehensive sexuality education rather than in programs to prevent pregnancy among adolescents generally.

5) Issue characteristics, fourth quote (pages 19-20): Based on the authors’ response to an earlier comment regarding the quote, it should then read: “And the reason for failure ...”

6) Political contexts, first quote (pages 20-21): Based on the authors’ response to the comment on this quote, if the participant used the word “fresh” to mean conducting community forums afresh, then the authors need to insert “[sic]” after the word to show that it was the participant’s mistake (i.e. we cannot use the word “fresh” as a verb). If this was an artifact of transcription, then the authors should change “fresh” to “conduct afresh”.

7) Discussion, fourth paragraph, fourth statement (page 27): Change “from 1990 levels by 2015” to “by 2015 from 1990 levels” for the statement to read well.

Reviewer #2: These were my initial comments that were not forwarded to the authors:

"I find this to be an interesting paper and the authors have written it in very clear and easy to read language. Overall, I believe the manuscript, when published will contribute to the understanding of the policy-making and agenda-setting processes. It highlights some of the controversies around adolescence, including the definition of who is an adolescent and the age to include in that definition, the acceptability of providing comprehensive sexuality education to adolescents, the problem of acceptable language, the difficulty of civil society coordination, and the perennial problem of donor-influence in agenda-setting. There are some areas I think the work may require some revisions:

1. State and non-state actor -- It will be useful in the methods section to highlight who the state actors are. I understand that this is in the Table 1, but a high level statement to show the state actors are will be useful rather than expecting the readers to wait until they get to the table or to flip to the table to find the actors and flip back to continue reading.

2. What do the notations ID1, ID2, ID3... just before a verbatim quotation mean? First, what is the meaning of "ID"? Second, is the listing various IDs before a verbatim quotation indicative of the relevance of the interviews for a particular participant to the point being made? If it is, it will be necessary to state that that is the case. I think the referencing for the quotes can be improved by actually stating the respondent, for example, "Ministry of Youth" or some other form of referencing the quotes.

3. In a few instances, there are cases of misplaced punctuation marks, which need to be revised. For example before a verbatim quote the authors often place a fulls-stop and open a bracket to place the ID1, ID2... in without a full-stop at the end of the list.

4. It is surprising that the study could find that there are no adolescent SRH champions in Kenya. I wonder if this is simply a matter of the participants that were interviewed. It is really hard to believe that there are no champions. Could the author comment further on this?"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Nov 2019

25 November 2019

Thank you for your time and careful review of our manuscript “PONE-D-19-27067 Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study.” We deeply appreciate the feedback from the reviewers.

We have addressed your comments in the revised manuscript and have detailed our responses to each point below (in blue font).

Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this revised manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. If there is any additional information or details about the study that we can provide, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Authors

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the issues raised by reviewers. There are, however, a few editorial corrections to make. These include:

1) Study setting, second statement (page 6): Rephrase to read: “At the global level, these include …” Also, delete “of 2002” at the end of the UN General Assembly on Special Session on Children, and “at a global level” at the end of the statement since it is unnecessary repetition of the phrase used at the beginning. This has been edited

It now reads, “At the global level these include the 1994 United Nations at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) [26], the 2002 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children [27]…”

2) Study setting, third statement (page 6): Rephrase to read: “At the global level …” and delete one “the” after “adopted” to avoid unnecessary repetition. This has been edited

It now reads, “At the regional level, in Africa, Kenya has adopted the Maputo Protocol”

3) Study setting, fourth statement (page 6): Insert “the” before “National Youth Policy” for the statement to read well. This has been edited

It now reads, “Locally the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, the National Youth Policy (2007)…”

4) Ideas: Framing the problem, second quote (pages 14-15): Based on the authors’ response to earlier comment regarding the clarity of the quote, they need to add “[comprehensive sexuality education]” in brackets as shown after “invest more” so that it is clear that the participant was referring to investing in comprehensive sexuality education rather than in programs to prevent pregnancy among adolescents generally. This has been edited

It now reads, “…So I think that both culturally and religiously, there is that feeling that if you invest more [in comprehensive sexuality education] then, they will now know that it is their right (State Corporation; IDI_I0).”

5) Issue characteristics, fourth quote (pages 19-20): Based on the authors’ response to an earlier comment regarding the quote, it should then read: “And the reason for failure ...” This has been edited

It now reads, “I think that is where the challenge lies. And the reason for failure to optimize the services for young people is actually because resources are not there….”

6) Political contexts, first quote (pages 20-21): Based on the authors’ response to the comment on this quote, if the participant used the word “fresh” to mean conducting community forums afresh, then the authors need to insert “[sic]” after the word to show that it was the participant’s mistake (i.e. we cannot use the word “fresh” as a verb). If this was an artifact of transcription, then the authors should change “fresh” to “conduct afresh”.

Thank you for highlighting this. This has been edited from the transcript to read, “but now you have to have fresh community participation [engagement] forums (Ministry of Youth and Gender; IDI_9). The second “have” had been dropped in transcription.

7) Discussion, fourth paragraph, fourth statement (page 27): Change “from 1990 levels by 2015” to “by 2015 from 1990 levels” for the statement to read well. This has been edited

It now reads, “to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015 from 1990 levels and a set of solutions…”

Reviewer #2: These were my initial comments that were not forwarded to the authors:

"I find this to be an interesting paper and the authors have written it in very clear and easy to read language. Overall, I believe the manuscript, when published will contribute to the understanding of the policy-making and agenda-setting processes. It highlights some of the controversies around adolescence, including the definition of who is an adolescent and the age to include in that definition, the acceptability of providing comprehensive sexuality education to adolescents, the problem of acceptable language, the difficulty of civil society coordination, and the perennial problem of donor-influence in agenda-setting. There are some areas I think the work may require some revisions:

1. State and non-state actor -- It will be useful in the methods section to highlight who the state actors are. I understand that this is in the Table 1, but a high level statement to show the state actors are will be useful rather than expecting the readers to wait until they get to the table or to flip to the table to find the actors and flip back to continue reading.

We have now included the statement: State actors that were targeted included government officials from the ministries of health, youth and gender affairs, devolution and planning, and education.

2. What do the notations ID1, ID2, ID3... just before a verbatim quotation mean? It lists respondents who had very similar thoughts on the topic.

First, what is the meaning of "ID"? It means In-depth-interview. We have changed it to IDI throughout the text for clarity.

Second, is the listing various IDs before a verbatim quotation indicative of the relevance of the interviews for a particular participant to the point being made? The listing indicates other respondents who agree with the point being made and had very similar views to the respondent cited. If it is, it will be necessary to state that that is the case. We have included a sentence in the first paragraph under results (page 21) that reads, “The listing of various IDIs before a verbatim quotation correspond to respondents who had similar views to the point being made.”

I think the referencing for the quotes can be improved by actually stating the respondent, for example, "Ministry of Youth" or some other form of referencing the quotes.

We have now included the type of respondents such as Ministry of Youth or International NGO.

3. In a few instances, there are cases of misplaced punctuation marks, which need to be revised. For example before a verbatim quote the authors often place a full-stop and open a bracket to place the ID1, ID2... in without a full-stop at the end of the list.

We have revised the punctuation to place the full-stop after the closed bracket throughout the paper.

4. It is surprising that the study could find that there are no adolescent SRH champions in Kenya. I wonder if this is simply a matter of the participants that were interviewed. It is really hard to believe that there are no champions. Could the author comment further on this?"

The term policy champion here is used to mean policy entrepreneur as originally defined by John Kingdon. We have changed champion to read entrepreneur throughout the text and provided some context on page 13, which references Kingdon, “Policy entrepreneurs do the process of connecting the problem with a policy solution and the political factors. The entrepreneurs 1) highlight indicators of the problem to dramatize it, 2) Push for one kind of problem definition over another – invite policymakers to see for themselves, and 3) present specific policies as the solution to a problem on the agenda 4) “Soften up” by writing papers, giving testimony, holding hearings or getting press coverage [43].

My own thinking regarding this question is in line with what Kingdon says—that entrepreneurs do more than push, push, and push for their proposals or for their conception of problems. They also lie in wait – for a window to open. In the process of leaping at their opportunity, they play a central role in coupling the streams at the window.” This kind of person has not yet emerged in the Kenyan adolescent SRH space. Typically this can be someone like the first lady, a charismatic politician with a personal history or a local or international celebrity. My thoughts are that the potential entrepreneurs e.g. politicians are too risk averse to engage with a controversial issue (page 26). It is easier to champion improved access to maternal services and providing fistula services as the first lady of Kenya has done with the beyond zero campaign but without mentioning the adolescent and “hoping/crossing fingers” that they get addressed

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_25NOV2019.doc

Click here for additional data file.

27 Nov 2019

Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study

PONE-D-19-27067R2

Dear Dr. Onono,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Joshua Amo-Adjei, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

11 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-27067R2

Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: a qualitative study

Dear Dr. Onono:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Joshua Amo-Adjei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE