The impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review

Pandemic mitigation measures can have a negative impact on access and provision of essential healthcare services including sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. This rapid review looked at the literature on the impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on SRH and gender-based violence (GBV) on women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) using WHO rapid review guidance. We looked at relevant literature published in the English language from January 2020 to October 2021 from LMICs using WHO rapid review methods. A total of 114 articles were obtained from PubMed, Google Scholar and grey literature of which 20 met the eligible criteria. Our review found that there was an overall reduction in; (a) uptake of services as shown by lower antenatal, postnatal and family planning clinic attendance, (b) service delivery as shown by reduced health facility deliveries, and post abortion care services and (c) reproductive health outcomes as shown by an increase in incidence of GBV especially intimate partner violence. COVID-19 mitigation measures negatively impact SRH of women in LMICs. Findings from this review could inform policy makers in the health sector to recognise the potential adverse effects of COVID-19 responses on SRH in the country, and therefore implement mitigation measures.

Maternal Sociodemographic Factors and Antenatal Stress

Antenatal stress has been associated with adverse birth outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, and preterm birth. Understanding key determinants of stress in a vulnerable pregnant population has the potential of informing development of targeted cost-effective interventions to mitigate against these adverse birth outcomes. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from 150 pregnant women attending antenatal care services at a rural referral hospital in Kenya. The participants completed a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, the Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and gave a hair sample for cortisol and cortisone analysis. The association between selected sociodemographic predictors (age, parity, marital status, maternal education, household income, polygyny, and intimate partner violence) and outcomes (hair cortisol, hair cortisone, and PSS score) was examined using univariate, bivariate and multivariate models. We found a negative association between PSS scores and household income (β = −2.40, p = 0.016, 95% CI = −4.36, −0.45). There was a positive association of the ratio of hair cortisone to cortisol with Adolescent age group (β = 0.64, p = 0.031, 95% CI = 0.06, 1.22), and a negative association with Cohabitation (β = −1.21, p = 0.009, 95% CI = −2.11, −0.31). We conclude that household income influenced psychological stress in pregnancy. Adolescence and cohabitation may have an influence on biological stress, but the nature of this effect is unclear.