ADOLESCENT SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: A REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICES IN EMERGENCY SETTINGS

Abstract

Merged with the status of children and often adults, adolescents (10-19 years) have been easily overlooked in programs, with much reference on them directed to the ‘young people’ (15-24 years) which had meant negligence to their specific needs (Chandra-Mouli et al, 2019). From the paucity of programs that address essential Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (ASRH) needs, to the meager available research and data of the few implemented ones, ASRH services in emergencies has been ineffective over the years (Kerner et al, 2012). Yet in this inherently disruptive environment with alteration in normalcy and lack of suitable support adolescents are constantly exposed to risky behaviors, sexual assaults, sexually transmitted infections and unsafe abortion (Pearce, et al, 2016).This review goes beyond previous work, by focusing exclusively on adolescents (10-19 years) in emergencies and by providing additional synthesis and analysis of the ASRH implementation features (including the focus of the program) and the challenges in the implementation process, which are not addressed in the existing review . This Literature review utilized Queen Margaret University Online Library which was also linked to MEDLINE data base. This was utilized since it is well linked to PUBMED. Literatures were few, in total 10 studies were reviewed. The data extraction matrix was used for data analysis comparing and contrasting the same category or theme for each of the selected papers. This review found that most of the ASRH interventions in this setting are directed at adolescent behavioral changes, ASRH interventions were deployed piece meal, as they were not combined or delivered together as directed by global guideline (IAWG, 2010), thus adolescents might have limited benefit of an ideal intervention. We also found that community engagement can be achieved from outset through the incorporation of other essentials educational contents apart from ASRH information and services in the implementation packages. It also realized an approach to minimizing program intervention gaps often caused by inadequate funding in this setting. Major limitations of the study were the small number of studies meeting inclusion criteria and the content gaps on ASRH service implementation in humanitarian settings. With narrative approach employed, necessary assessment of quality of the articles was not judiciously carried out as it would have been expected in a systematic review. We believe that this is justified by the aim of being as comprehensive as possible