Search

Previous literature reports that low male partner support is a barrier to women's adherence and retention in HIV care programs. This qualitative study explored the relationships between partners to understand what is meant by male partner support in adherence of HIV-positive women in four healthcare facilities in Southern Malawi. We conducted 8 semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs) with 73 participants (40 men and 33 women) and 10 in-depth interviews (IDIs) between August 2018 to December 2019. Participants were HIV-positive patients, healthcare workers (HCWs), expert patients (EPs), and couples attending the clinic. All data were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a gender-responsive grounded theory approach. This study confirms previous literature, which suggests male partner support is expressed by providing access to transport to the clinic and accompaniment to appointments. However, we found that men can also control access to resources and decision-making. Support is more complex than previous literature reported and, in some cases, gender norms significantly limit women's capacity to engage in care independently of male support since women need male partner permission to access the resources to attend clinics. This paper suggests that restrictive male-partner gender norms limit women's power to engage in care. Most importantly, the gender analysis reveals that what previous literature describes as male partner support can sometimes hide male partner control in permitting access to resources to attend health facilities. For this reason, policies enhancing male support should consider the gender power relationship between partners to avoid reinforcing gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) forces governments to consider not only how services will be provided – but which services – and to whom, when, where, how and at what cost. This paper considers the implications for achieving UHC through the lens of abortion-related care for adolescents. Our comparative study design includes three countries purposively selected to represent varying levels of restriction on access to abortion: Ethiopia (abortion is legal and services implemented); Zambia (legal, complex services with numerous barriers to implementations and provision of information); Malawi (legally highly restricted). Our policy and legal analyses are supplemented by comparative vignettes based on interviews (n = 330) in 2018/2019 with adolescents aged 10–19 who have sought abortion-related care in each country. We focus on an under-considered but critical legal framing for adolescents – the age of consent. We compare legal and political commitments to advancing adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights, including abortion-related care. Ethiopia appears to approach UHC for safe abortion care, and the legal provision for under 18-year-olds appears to be critical. In Malawi, the most restrictive legal environment for abortion, little progress appears to have been made towards UHC for adolescents. In Zambia, despite longstanding legal provision for safe abortion on a wide range of grounds, the limited services combined with low levels of knowledge of the law mean that the combined rights and technical agendas of UHC have not yet been realised. Our comparative analyses showing how policies and laws are framed have critical implications for equity and justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]