| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Campbell, L, et al.
(author)
-
Intimate Partner Violence During COVID-19 Restrictions: A Study of 30 Countries From the I-SHARE Consortium
- 2023
-
In: Journal of interpersonal violence. - : SAGE Publications. - 1552-6518 .- 0886-2605. ; 38:11-12, s. 7115-7142
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Intimate partner violence (IPV) causes substantial physical and psychological trauma. Restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lockdowns and movement restrictions, may exacerbate IPV risk and reduce access to IPV support services. This cross-sectional study examines IPV during COVID-19 restrictions in 30 countries from the International Sexual HeAlth and REproductive Health (I-SHARE) study conducted from July 20th, 2020, to February, 15th, 2021. IPV was a primary outcome measure adapted from a World Health Organization multicountry survey. Mixed-effects modeling was used to determine IPV correlates among participants stratified by cohabitation status. The sample included 23,067 participants from 30 countries. A total of 1,070/15,336 (7.0%) participants stated that they experienced IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. A total of 1,486/15,336 (9.2%) participants stated that they had experienced either physical or sexual partner violence before the restrictions, which then decreased to 1,070 (7.0%) after the restrictions. In general, identifying as a sexual minority and experiencing greater economic vulnerability were associated with higher odds of experiencing IPV during COVID-19 restrictions, which were accentuated among participants who were living with their partners. Greater stringency of COVID-19 restrictions and living in urban or semi-urban areas were associated with lower odds of experiencing IPV in some settings. The I-SHARE data suggest a substantial burden of IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. However, the restrictions were correlated with reduced IPV in some settings. There is a need for investing in specific support systems for survivors of IPV during the implementation of restrictions designed to contain infectious disease outbreaks.
|
|
| 3. |
- de Londras, F, et al.
(author)
-
The impact of criminalisation on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence
- 2022
-
In: BMJ global health. - : BMJ. - 2059-7908. ; 7:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Abortion is criminalised to at least some degree in most countries. International human rights bodies have recognised that criminalisation results in the provision of poor-quality healthcare goods and services, is associated with lack of registration and unavailability of essential medicines including mifepristone and misoprostol, obstructs the provision of abortion information, obstructs training for abortion provision, is associated with delayed and unsafe abortion, and does not achieve its apparent aims of ether protecting abortion seekers from unsafe abortion or preventing abortion. Human rights bodies recommend decriminalisation, which is generally associated with reduced stigma, improved quality of care, and improved access to safe abortion. Drawing on insights from reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, this review addresses knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of criminalisation of abortion. This review identified evidence of the impacts of criminalisation of people seeking to access abortion and on abortion providers and considered whether, and if so how, this demonstrates the incompatibility of criminalisation with substantive requirements of international human rights law. Our analysis shows that criminalisation is associated with negative implications for health outcomes, health systems, and human rights enjoyment. It provides a further underpinning from empirical evidence of the harms of criminalisation that have already been identified by human rights bodies. It also provides additional evidence to support the WHO’s recommendation for full decriminalisation of abortion.
|
|
| 4. |
- de Londras, F, et al.
(author)
-
The impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence
- 2022
-
In: BMC public health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 22:1, s. 1232-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs “demean[] women as competent decision-makers”, the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- de Londras, F, et al.
(author)
-
Integrating rights and evidence: a technical advance in abortion guideline development
- 2021
-
In: BMJ global health. - : BMJ. - 2059-7908. ; 6:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As part of its core work, the WHO generates, translates and disseminates knowledge, including through guideline development. In recent years, substantial work has been undertaken to revise the Evidence to Decision framework in order to fully integrate inter alia human rights. This paper describes an innovative methodological approach taken by the authors to inform law and policy recommendations for the forthcoming third edition of the Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. The methodology described here effectively integrates human rights protection and enjoyment as part of health outcomes and analysis, ensuring that subsequent recommendations are consistent with international human rights standards. This will allow guideline users to make informed decisions on interventions, including legal and policy reform, to fulfil relevant human rights including the right to health.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
