Revising the Measurement of Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Author Information
Author(s): Jewel Gausman, Richard Adanu, Delia A. Bandoh, Neena R. Kapoor, Ernest Kenu, Ana Langer, Magdalene A. Odikro, Thomas Pullum, R. Rima Jolivet
Primary Institution: Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Hypothesis
Can a revised calculation method improve the validity of the SDG Indicator 5.6.2 for measuring access to sexual and reproductive health care?
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the SDG Indicator 5.6.2 could significantly alter the understanding of legal access to sexual and reproductive health care across countries.
Supporting Evidence
- The study found that the alternative calculation method produced systematically different results compared to the current method.
- 47 countries showed an increase in total indicator score with the alternative formula.
- Only 1 country, Sweden, had no change in score under both methods.
- The proposed changes could lead to different programmatic and policy priorities for sexual and reproductive health.
Takeaway
This study looks at how to better measure if countries are providing equal access to sexual and reproductive health care for everyone. They found that changing the way we calculate this can show different results.
Methodology
The study used secondary data from the 2022 UNFPA's Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Country Profiles and compared two calculation methods for the SDG Indicator 5.6.2.
Potential Biases
The current method of calculation may mask important differences in legal barriers and enablers.
Limitations
There is no gold standard for measuring the phenomenon under study, making it difficult to determine which indicator performs better.
Participant Demographics
Data from 75 countries were analyzed.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website