Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32398129›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2020

A systematic review of sexual and reproductive health interventions for young people in humanitarian and lower-and-middle-income country settings.

Alethea Desrosiers, Theresa Betancourt, Yasmine Kergoat, Chiara Servilli, Lale Say, Loulou Kobeissi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. High Burden ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alethea DesrosiersBoston College School of Social Work, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.
Theresa BetancourtBoston College School of Social Work, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.
Yasmine KergoatDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Chiara ServilliDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Lale SayDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Loulou KobeissiDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland. kobeissil@who.int.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7975-7529

Funding

World Health Organization NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccessibility of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in many lower-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) and humanitarian settings remains limited, particularly for young people. Young people facing humanitarian crises are also at higher risk for mental health problems, which can further exacerbate poor SRH outcomes. This review aimed to explore, describe and evaluate SRH interventions for young people in LMIC and humanitarian settings to better understand both SRH and psychosocial components of interventions that demonstrate effectiveness for improving SRH outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies examining interventions to improve SRH in young people in LMIC and humanitarian settings following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards for systematic reviews. Peer-reviewed journals and grey literature from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2018 were included. Two authors performed title, abstract and full-text screening independently. Data was extracted and analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach and the practice-wise clinical coding system.

resultsThe search yielded 813 results, of which 55 met inclusion criteria for full-text screening and thematic analysis. Primary SRH outcomes of effective interventions included: contraception and condom use skills, HIV/STI prevention/education, SRH knowledge/education, gender-based violence education and sexual self-efficacy. Common psychosocial intervention components included: assertiveness training, communication skills, and problem-solving.

conclusionsFindings suggest that several evidence-based SRH interventions may be effective for young people in humanitarian and LMIC settings. Studies that use double blind designs, include fidelity monitoring, and focus on implementation and sustainability are needed to further contribute to this evidence-base.

Indexed as

PovertySafe SexSexual BehaviorSexual HealthAdolescentAdultAltruismDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleReproductive Health ServicesSexually Transmitted DiseasesYoung AdultHumanitarian settingsReproductive healthSexual healthYoung people

Identifiers

PMID32398129
PMCPMC7216726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.