ArticleBMJ global health2025
Expanding access to sexual and reproductive health and rights through evidence-based policy dialogue: implications for practice from a multicountry initiative.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A critical evaluation of adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights in Rwanda.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPolicy dialogue is an important component of evidence-based policy-making. In 2019, WHO and Ministry of Health staff in 15 countries participated in an initiative that involved training and implementation of country-level sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) policy dialogues. An evaluation of the process and outcomes was subsequently undertaken in six of the countries.
methodsThe three-stage policy dialogue initiative included a preparatory phase to develop stakeholder analyses and policy briefs and a 2-day workshop to develop an action plan, followed by continuous support as the national teams implemented the action plans. A participatory, multimethod approach was used to evaluate the policy dialogue initiative, including a desk review of initiative documentation and interviews with project participants.
resultsParticipants reported positive experiences of the policy dialogue initiative and felt it improved their knowledge, skills and confidence. The ensuing policy dialogue activities in each country contributed to some SRHR policy development and/or implementation changes. The policy dialogue initiative supported these changes through its practical approach to learning and ongoing technical support. However, the impact of policy dialogues varied depending on political factors, the scope of policy goals, alignment with existing country priorities and stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, facilitating factors included strong support networks, incremental working and preparation for backlash against SRHR.
conclusionsOur experience highlights the value of policy dialogue for progressing SRHR policy change at the national level and the need for further investments in strengthening the skills of health decision-makers required for effective policy dialogue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.