» Articles » PMID: 37640487

Defining Collective Priorities: Research and Learning Agendas for Family Planning Across 6 Countries

Abstract

Evidence should be the foundation for a well-designed family planning (FP) program, but existing evidence is rarely aligned with and/or synthesized to speak directly to FP programmatic needs. Based on our experience cocreating FP research and learning agendas (FP RLAs) in Côte d'Ivoire, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, and Uganda, we argue that FP RLAs can drive the production of coordinated research that aligns with national priorities.To cocreate FP RLAs, stakeholders across 6 countries conducted desk reviews of 349 documents and 106 key informant interviews, organized consultation meetings in each country to prioritize evidence gaps and generate research and learning questions, and, ultimately, formed 6 FP RLAs comprising 190 unique questions. We outline the process for consensus-driven development of FP RLAs and communicate the results of an analysis of the questions in each FP RLA across 4 technical areas: self-care, equity, high impact practices, and youth. Each question was categorized as a learning versus research question, the former indicating an opportunity to synthesize existing evidence and the latter to conduct new research to answer the question. Themes emerging from the data shed light on shared evidence gaps across the 6 countries. We argue that similarities and differences in the questions in each FP RLA reflect the unique implementation experience and context, as well as each country's placement on the FP S-curve. Early uses of the FP RLAs include informing the development of FP costed implementation plans and FP2030 commitments. FP RLAs have also been discussed in multiple thematic working groups. For FP stakeholders, these FP RLAs represent a consensus-based agenda that can guide the generation and synthesis of evidence to answer each country's most pressing questions, ultimately driving progress toward increasingly evidence-based programming and policy.

Citing Articles

Addressing social norms for adolescent timing and spacing of pregnancy in low and middle-income countries: Developing a global research agenda.

Uysal J, Dixit A, Green C, Akinola M, Shaw B, Lundgren R J Glob Health. 2024; 14:04206.

PMID: 39545342 PMC: 11565465. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.14.04206.

References
1.
Chandra-Mouli V, Lane C, Wong S . What Does Not Work in Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Evidence on Interventions Commonly Accepted as Best Practices. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015; 3(3):333-40. PMC: 4570008. DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00126. View

2.
Kim C, Wilcher R, Petruney T, Krueger K, Wynne L, Zan T . A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018; 16(1):9. PMC: 5807737. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0284-2. View

3.
Rademacher K, Sripipatana T, Pfitzer A, Mackay A, Thurston S, Jackson A . A Global Learning Agenda for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG IUS): Addressing Challenges and Opportunities to Increase Access. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018; 6(4):635-643. PMC: 6370355. DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00383. View

4.
Ali M, Tran N, Kabra R, Kiare J . Strengthening contraceptive counselling: gaps in knowledge and implementation research. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021; 48(4):235-237. PMC: 9606496. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2021-201104. View

5.
Beyeler N, Fewer S, Yotebieng M, Yamey G . Improving resource mobilisation for global health R&D: a role for coordination platforms?. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4(1):e001209. PMC: 6407558. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001209. View