South Africa faces numerous reproductive challenges that include high rates of unplanned and adolescent pregnancies. The uptake and utilization of family planning services and modern contraception methods depend on numerous factors. The male partner plays a key role in reproductive health but data on this topic are outdated or have a predominant HIV prevention focus. The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of male partners on family planning and contraceptive (FP/C) uptake and use within the contemporary South African setting, and to identify further areas of exploration. This qualitative study was conducted in a community and healthcare provision setting in the eThekwini District in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. Data were collected from twelve community-based focus group discussions (n = 103), two healthcare providers focus group discussions (n = 16), and eight key informant individual in-depth interviews. Following a constructionist paradigm and using the health utilization behaviour model, data were analysed using thematic analysis, allowing a robust and holistic exploration of the data. The data from this study revealed the complex and evolving role that male partners play in FP/C uptake and use within this setting. Key themes from the data elucidated the dual nature of male involvement in FP/C use. Culturally influenced gender dynamics and adequate understanding of FP/C information were highlighted as key factors that influenced male attitudes and perceptions about contraceptive use, whether positively or negatively. Male opposition was attributed to limited understanding; misunderstandings about side-effects; male dominance in relationships; and physical abuse. These factors contributed to covert or discontinued use by female partners. Pathways identified through which male partners positively influenced FP/C uptake and access include: social support, adequate information, and shared responsibility. Understanding the role that male partners play in FP/C uptake and use is important in preventing unintended pregnancies and improving family planning policy and service delivery programmes. By identifying the barriers that male partners present, appropriate strategies can be implemented. Equally important is identifying how male partners facilitate and promote adherence and use, and how these positive strategies can be incorporated into policy to improve the uptake and use of FP/C.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 pandemic has spread to Africa, where nearly all countries have reported laboratory-confirmed cases of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although there are ongoing clinical trials of repurposed and investigational antiviral and immune-based therapies, there are as yet no scientifically proven, clinically effective pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Among the repurposed drugs, the commonly used antimalarials chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have become the focus of global scientific, media, and political attention despite a lack of randomized clinical trials supporting their efficacy. Chloroquine has been used worldwide for about 75 years and is listed by the WHO as an essential medicine to treat malaria. Hydroxychloroquine is mainly used as a therapy for autoimmune diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of CQ/HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 remains to be defined. Indiscriminate promotion and widespread use of CQ/HCQ have led to extensive shortages, self-treatment, and fatal overdoses. Shortages and increased market prices leave all countries vulnerable to substandard and falsified medical products, and safety issues are especially concerning for Africa because of its healthcare system limitations. Much needed in Africa is a cross-continental collaborative network for coordinated production, distribution, and post-marketing surveillance aligned to low-cost distribution of any approved COVID-19 drug; this would ideally be piggybacked on existing global aid efforts. Meanwhile, African countries should strongly consider implementing prescription monitoring schemes to ensure that any off-label CQ/HCQ use is appropriate and beneficial during this pandemic.

Most African countries have recorded relatively lower COVID-19 burdens than Western countries. This has been attributed to early and strong political commitment and robust implementation of public health measures, such as nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, face mask wearing, testing, contact tracing, and isolation, along with community education and engagement. Other factors include the younger population age strata and hypothesized but yet-to-be confirmed partially protective cross-immunity from parasitic diseases and/or other circulating coronaviruses. However, the true burden may also be underestimated due to operational and resource issues for COVID-19 case identification and reporting. In this perspective article, we discuss selected best practices and challenges with COVID-19 contact tracing in Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. Best practices from these country case studies include sustained, multi-platform public communications; leveraging of technology innovations; applied public health expertise; deployment of community health workers; and robust community engagement. Challenges include an overwhelming workload of contact tracing and case detection for healthcare workers, misinformation and stigma, and poorly sustained adherence to isolation and quarantine. Important lessons learned include the need for decentralization of contact tracing to the lowest geographic levels of surveillance, rigorous use of data and technology to improve decision-making, and sustainment of both community sensitization and political commitment. Further research is needed to understand the role and importance of contact tracing in controlling community transmission dynamics in African countries, including among children. Also, implementation science will be critically needed to evaluate innovative, accessible, and cost-effective digital solutions to accommodate the contact tracing workload.

Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.