Asha S George1, Tanya Jacobs2, Mary V Kinney2, Annie Haakenstad3, Neha S Singh4, Kumanan Rasanathan5, Mickey Chopra6. 1. School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, Private Bag x17, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa. asgeorge@uwc.ac.za. 2. School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, Private Bag x17, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa. 3. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. 5. Health Systems Global Member, Geneva, Switzerland. 6. World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and reproductive health. However, more can be done. While building on service delivery approaches more consistently, it must also fund initiatives that address the main social and systems drivers of adolescent health. This requires capacity building for the technical aspects of adolescent health, but also engaging politically to ensure that the right actors are convened to prioritize adolescent health in country plans and to ensure accountability in the GFF process itself.
BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and reproductive health. However, more can be done. While building on service delivery approaches more consistently, it must also fund initiatives that address the main social and systems drivers of adolescent health. This requires capacity building for the technical aspects of adolescent health, but also engaging politically to ensure that the right actors are convened to prioritize adolescent health in country plans and to ensure accountability in the GFF process itself.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent health; Content analysis; Development assistance; Gender; Global financing facility; Health financing; Multi-sectoral action; Social determinants; World Bank
Authors: Peter Sheehan; Kim Sweeny; Bruce Rasmussen; Annababette Wils; Howard S Friedman; Jacqueline Mahon; George C Patton; Susan M Sawyer; Eric Howard; John Symons; Karin Stenberg; Satvika Chalasani; Neelam Maharaj; Nicola Reavley; Hui Shi; Masha Fridman; Alison Welsh; Emeka Nsofor; Laura Laski Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter S Azzopardi; Stephen J C Hearps; Kate L Francis; Elissa C Kennedy; Ali H Mokdad; Nicholas J Kassebaum; Stephen Lim; Caleb M S Irvine; Theo Vos; Alex D Brown; Surabhi Dogra; Stuart A Kinner; Natasha S Kaoma; Mariam Naguib; Nicola J Reavley; Jennifer Requejo; John S Santelli; Susan M Sawyer; Vegard Skirbekk; Marleen Temmerman; Jordan Tewhaiti-Smith; Joseph L Ward; Russell M Viner; George C Patton Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 79.321