We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Comparative analysis of 2 approaches to monitor countries' progress towards full and equal access to sexual and reproductive health care, information, and education in 75 countries: An observational validation study.
- Authors
Gausman, Jewel; Adanu, Richard; Bandoh, Delia A. B.; Kapoor, Neena R; Kenu, Ernest; Langer, Ana; Odikro, Magdalene A.; Pullum, Thomas; Jolivet, R. Rima
- Abstract
Background: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 5.6.2 is the "Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information, and education." This indicator plays a key role in tracking global progress toward achieving gender equity and empowerment, ensuring its validity is essential. Significant challenges related to the indicator's calculation have been noted, which have important implications for the indicator's validity in measuring progress towards meeting the SDG target. Recommendations have been made to revise the scoring of the indicator. This study examines the indicator's validity by proposing a revision to the indicator's calculation that addresses these global concerns and comparing the resulting values. Methods and findings: This is an observational, validation study which used secondary data from the 2022 United Nations Population Fund's Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Country Profiles from 75 countries. To address global recommendations, we proposed making 2 changes to the indicator's calculation. First, we re-expressed all barriers and enablers to take positive values. Second, we used a weighted additive approach to calculate the total score, rather than the mean of the 13 individual component scores, which assigns equal weight to the substantive domains rather than the components. Our main outcome measures are the indicator values obtained from both scoring approaches examined. We assessed the indicator's convergent validity by comparing the value obtained using the indicator's current formula to the proposed formula using the Bland–Altman approach. We examined and interpreted changes in the indicator's overall score that result from comparing the existing indicator with the proposed alternative. Differences in the total value of the indicator comparing the alternative versus the current formulation range from −7.18 percentage points in Mali to 26.21 percentage points in South Sudan. The majority of countries (n = 47) had an increase in total indicator score as a result of the alternative formula, while 27 countries had a decrease in score. Only 1 country, Sweden, saw no change in score, as it scored 100% of the possible indicator value under both rubrics. The mean difference between the scores produced by the 2 measures is 2.28 suggesting that the 2 methods may produce systematically different results. Under the alternative formulation, the most substantial changes were observed in the scores for "Component 3: Abortion." The indicator's current calculation results in 16 countries being assigned a score of zero, for "Component 3: Abortion" which masks important differences in the number of legal barriers present and whether women can be criminally charged for illegal abortion. After re-expressing barriers on a positive scale following the proposed formulation, only 4 countries have a score of zero for Component 3. The main limitation of our methodology is that there is no gold standard for measurement of the phenomenon under study, and thus we are unable to specify with total certainty which indicator performs better. Conclusions: Our results illustrate underlying challenges with the current indicator formulation that impact its interpretability. The proposed changes could alter the way the current legal landscape governing sexual and reproductive health is understood, thereby pointing to different programmatic and policy priorities that may better support countries in achieving full and equal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights globally. Jewel Gausman and co-workers explore alternative approaches to measure progress towards equal acess to sexual and reproductive healthcare. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 5.6.2 is defined as the "number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee full and equal access to women and men aged 15 years and older to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education." With its key role in measuring progress towards achieving gender equity and empowerment for all, ensuring the validity of this indicator is essential. Past research has been critical of the construction of the indicator, but no previous studies have attempted to validate its calculation. What did the researchers do and find?: We addressed the challenges with the calculation of the indicator that had been previously identified in the published literature and proposed an alternative method of calculation. We calculated the value of SDG Indicator 5.6.2 and iteratively compared it to the proposed alternative using data from 75 countries globally. Our results show that the 2 different measurement approaches for the same underlying construct produce systematically different values, supporting a need to revisit the formulation of the existing indicator. What do these findings mean?: Our proposed revisions may improve the overall stability and interpretability of the indicator's value across countries. The changes proposed to the indicator's calculation suggest different priorities for action to drive progress in achieving full and equal access to sexual and reproductive health care, information, and education. Our study is limited by the fact that there is no gold standard in measurement of the policy and legal environment, thus all measures considered are proxies for the underlying construct.
- Subjects
RIGHT to health; REPRODUCTIVE health; REPRODUCTIVE rights; GENDER inequality; UNITS of measurement
- Publication
PLoS Medicine, 2024, Vol 21, Issue 12, p1
- ISSN
1549-1277
- Publication type
Academic Journal
- DOI
10.1371/journal.pmed.1004476