Search

Since 1984, Republican administrations in the US have enacted the global gag rule (GGR), which prohibits non-US-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from providing, referring for, or counselling on abortion as a method of family planning, or advocating for the liberalisation of abortion laws, as a condition for receiving certain categories of US Global Health Assistance. Versions of the GGR implemented before 2017 applied to US Family Planning Assistance only, but the Trump administration expanded the policy's reach by applying it to nearly all types of Global Health Assistance. Documentation of the policy's harms in the peer-reviewed and grey literature has grown considerably in recent years, however few cross-country analyses exist. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the GGR's impacts across three countries with distinct abortion laws: Kenya, Madagascar and Nepal. We conducted 479 in-depth qualitative interviews between August 2018 and March 2020. Participants included representatives of Ministries of Health and NGOs that did and did not certify the GGR, providers of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services at public and private facilities, community health workers, and contraceptive clients. We observed greater breakdown of NGO coordination and chilling effects in countries where abortion is legal and there is a sizeable community of non-US-based NGOs working on SRH. However, we found that the GGR fractured SRH service delivery in all countries, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. Contraceptive service availability, accessibility and training for providers were particularly damaged. Further, this analysis makes clear that the GGR has substantial and deleterious effects on public sector infrastructure for SRH in addition to NGOs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The evolution and contemporary challenges of health research (HR) in Madagascar are poorly documented. We aim to gain insights on the factors that shape Madagascar's National Health Research System (NHRS) to better understand their influence. We conducted a qualitative case study, which included a documentary review and semi-structured interviews with 38 key informants. We carried out a thematic analysis and used the WHO/AFRO NHRS Barometer to structure the presentation of the results. There is no legislative framework to support HR activities and institutions. There is, however, a policy document outlining national priorities for HS. Human resources for HR are insufficient, due to challenges in training and retaining researchers. International collaboration is almost the only source of HR funding. Collaborations contribute to developing human and institutional capacity, but they are not always aligned with research carried out locally and the country's priority health needs. Incomplete efforts to improve regulation and low public investment in research training and research implementation reflect an insufficient commitment to HR by the government. Negotiating equitable international partnerships, the availability of public funding, and aligning HR with national health priorities would constitute a solid basis for the development of the NHRS in Madagascar., Competing Interests: Les auteurs ne déclarent aucun conflit d´intérêt., (Copyright: Joëlle Laure Sobngwi-Tambekou et al.)

Madagascar's health system is highly dependent on donor funding, especially from the United States (US), and relies on a few nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) to provide contraceptive services in remote areas of the country. The Trump administration reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule (GGR) in 2017; this policy requires non-US NGOs receiving US global health funding to certify that neither they nor their sub-grantees will provide, counsel or refer for abortion as a method of family planning. Evidence of the impact of the GGR in a country with restrictive abortion laws, like Madagascar - which has no explicit exception to save the woman's life - is limited. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 259 representatives of the Ministry of Health and NGOs, public and private health providers, community health workers and contraceptive clients in Antananarivo and eight districts between May 2019 and March 2020. Interviews highlighted the impact of the GGR on NGOs that did not certify the policy and lost their US funding. This reduction in funding led to fewer contraceptive service delivery points, including mobile outreach services, a critical component of care in rural areas. Public and private health providers reported increased contraceptive stockouts and fees charged to clients. Although the GGR is ostensibly about abortion, it has reduced access to contraception for the Malagasy population. This is one of few studies to directly document the impact on women who themselves described their increased difficulties obtaining contraception ultimately resulting in discontinuation of contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.