0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How do we measure unmet need within sexual and reproductive health? A systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Addressing health inequality with sexual and reproductive health requires an understanding of unmet need within a range of populations. This review examined the methods and definitions that have been used to measure unmet need, and the populations most frequently assessed.

          Methods:

          Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management and Policy Database (HMIC)) were searched for studies that described quantitative measurement of unmet need within sexual and/or reproductive health between 2010 and 2021. A narrative synthesis was then undertaken to ascertain themes within the literature.

          Results:

          The database search yielded 19,747 papers; 216 papers were included after screening. 190 studies assessed unmet reproductive health need, of which 137 were analyses of trends among people living in low/lower-middle income countries; 181 used cross-sectional data, with only nine analyses being longitudinal. Eighteen studies analysed unmet sexual health need, of which 12 focused on high and upper-middle income populations. 16 papers used cross-sectional analyses. The remaining 10 studies examined unmet need for a combination of sexual and reproductive health services, eight among populations from upper-middle or high income countries. All were cross-sectional analyses. 165 studies used the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) definition of unmet need; no other standardised definition was used among the remaining papers.

          Discussion:

          There is a significant focus on unmet need for contraception among women in low income countries within the published literature, leaving considerable evidence gaps in relation to unmet need within sexual health generally and among men in particular, and unmet reproductive health need in high income settings. In addition, using an increased range of data collection methods, analyses and definitions of unmet need would enable better understanding of health inequality in this area.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring sexual behaviour: methodological challenges in survey research.

          K Fenton (2001)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Subjective unmet need and utilization of health care services in Canada: what are the equity implications?

            This study aimed to evaluate whether subjective assessments of unmet need may complement conventional methods of measuring socioeconomic inequity in health care utilization. This study draws on the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey to develop a conceptual framework for understanding how unmet need arises, to empirically assess the association between utilization and the different types of unmet need (due to waiting times, barriers and personal reasons), and to investigate the effect of adjusting for unmet need on estimates of income-related inequity. The study's findings suggest that a disaggregated approach to analyzing unmet need is required, since the three different subgroups of unmet need that we identify in Canada have different associations with utilization, along with different equity implications. People who report unmet need due to waiting times use more health services than would be expected based on their observable characteristics. However, there is no consistent pattern of utilization among people who report unmet need due to access barriers, or for reasons related to personal choice. Estimates of inequity remain unchanged when we incorporate information on unmet need in the analysis. Subjective assessments of unmet need, namely those that relate to barriers to access, provide additional policy-relevant information that can be used to complement conventional methods of measuring inequity, to better understand inequity, and to guide policy action. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Barriers to Care Among Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Adults.

              Policy Points: Transgender and gender nonconforming (GNC) adults may experience barriers to care for a variety of reasons, including discrimination and lack of awareness by providers in health care settings. In our analysis of a large, population-based sample, we found transgender and GNC adults were more likely to be uninsured and have unmet health care needs, and were less likely to have routine care, compared to cisgender (nontransgender) women. Our findings varied by gender identity. More research is needed on transgender and GNC populations, including on how public policy and provider awareness affects health care access and health outcomes differentially by gender identity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Perspectives in Public Health
                Perspect Public Health
                SAGE Publications
                1757-9139
                1757-9147
                September 20 2022
                : 175791392211187
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Global Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
                [2 ]Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
                [3 ]Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK; Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Article
                10.1177/17579139221118778
                4a033c56-ab09-4a77-8066-408bada2a844
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article