Gender-Based Violence Is a Human Rights Violation: Are Donors Responding Adequately? What a Decade of Donor Interventions in Colombia, Kenya, and Uganda Reveals.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a violation of human rights and must be addressed as such. This paper examines whether donor practices align with a rights-based approach, using data from our comprehensive study of foreign funding flows related to GBV in Colombia, Kenya, and Uganda from 2010 to 2020. By analyzing data from 1,180 grants-and providing parallel analyses of the state of GBV, and GBV reporting and interventions in each country-we demonstrate donors' role in shaping GBV outcomes and their consequent duty to address policies and practices that violate rights.

COVID-19 and gender-based violence service provision in the United States.

Introduction: Gender-based violence (GBV) policies and services in the United States (U.S.) have historically been underfunded and siloed from other health services.

Multilevel Determinants of Integrated Service Delivery for Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health in Humanitarian Settings.

Inter-agency guidelines recommend that survivors of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings receive multisectoral services consistent with a survivor-centered approach. Providing integrated services across sectors is challenging, and aspirations often fall short in practice. In this study, we explore factors that influence the implementation of a multisectoral, integrated intervention intended to reduce psychological distress and intimate partner violence in Nyarugusu Refugee Camp, Tanzania.

'Scrambling to figure out what to do': a mixed method analysis of COVID-19's impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States.

Objective: A weak and politicised COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States (US) that failed to prioritise sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) overlaid longstanding SRHR inequities. In this study we investigated how COVID-19 affected SRHR service provision in the US during the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Methods: We used a multiphase, three-part, mixed method approach incorporating: (1) a comprehensive review of state-by-state emergency response policies that mapped state-level actions to protect or suspend SRHR services including abortion, (2) a survey of SRHR service providers (n=40) in a sample of 10 states that either protected or suspended services and (3) in-depth interviews (n=15) with SRHR service providers and advocacy organisations.