Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Dec 31;19(12):e0300829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300829

The sexual and reproductive health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-synthesis

Victoria Kalu Uka 1,*, Helen White 1, Debbie M Smith 2
Editor: Laura Brunelli3
PMCID: PMC11687907  PMID: 39739925

Abstract

The sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of youths in sub-Saharan Africa are not being fully met, as evidenced by high rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections in this population. Understanding service needs and preferences of sub-Saharan African youths aged 10–24 years is critical for improving access and SRH outcomes and the focus of this systematic review of qualitative research. Four databases were searched with key words to identify relevant studies, supplemented by citation search, with an update in June 2023. The eligibility criteria were clear and developed a priori. Twenty included studies from seven countries underwent quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). A meta-ethnographic approach was used to synthesise concepts across studies by the researchers. Four key themes were generated: information needs; service needs; social needs; and delivery preferences. Information needs encompassed desires for age-appropriate education on contraception, safer sex, bodily changes, and healthy relationships to fill knowledge gaps. Social needs consisted of life skills training, vocational development, substance use rehabilitation, and support systems to foster healthy behaviours. Service needs included accessible youth-friendly sexual health services, preventative care, sexually transmitted Infections (STI) management, and contraception; and delivery preferences including competent providers who maintain privacy and confidentiality, convenient youth-oriented settings, free or low-cost provisions, and youth involvement in service design. In conclusion, the identified themes emphasise the diverse nature of SRH needs and preferences among sub-Saharan African youths. Insights from their unique priorities and unmet needs inform policy development and intervention strategies. Tailored awareness campaigns, youth-centred training for providers, youth-friendly and confidential SRH models, comprehensive education, and engaging youth in developing relevant solutions may improve acceptability, access, and health outcomes. These efforts could address barriers around stigma, costs, and lack of knowledge, contributing to enhanced SRH and wellbeing. Fulfilling youth SRH needs in sub-Saharan Africa requires commitment across sectors to evidence-based, youth-focused strategies placing their perspectives at the centre.

Introduction

According to World Health Organisation (WHO), youth are defined as those aged 10–24 years [1]. Youths make up a large portion of the population in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and are critical to nation-building [2, 3]. However, access to sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) is restricted, due to religious, social, economic, and political barriers [4]. These barriers contribute to significant disparities in youth SRHS access and utilisation across SSA countries [58]. While political leaders in sub-Saharan Africa may embrace international support and funding for youth SRHS, actual implementation within these countries often face challenges [912]. Each year, over 374 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur globally, predominantly among youth aged 15–24 years, with a significant proportion in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [13, 14]. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), youth aged 15–24 years account for a considerable portion of these cases, reflecting the high burden of STIs in this region [13]. Approximately 1.5 million HIV-positive youth reside in SSA [15]. Moreover, gender inequality in SSA exacerbates sexual health challenges, with many females experiencing unmet contraception needs due to intimate partner violence, which prevents them from negotiating safer sex [16]. Each year, 21 million pregnancies occur among 15-19-year-olds in LMICs, with half being unplanned [13, 14]. In SSA, unplanned pregnancies among adolescents contribute to increased female school dropout rates, further widening gender disparities in education [17, 18]. With abortion still illegal in some countries in SSA, including Nigeria, unintended pregnancy raises the vulnerability of young females to unsafe options and complications [19]. Such situations strain youths emotionally and psychologically [20], lowering self-esteem and disconnecting them from more empowered peers [21]. Healthy development is hindered [22] and potentially leads to substance misuse or mental health issues [23]. This connection between unmet sexual and reproductive health needs and hindered development is crucial to understand. As emphasised in [22], youth is a critical period for healthy development, including sexual development. When sexual and reproductive health needs are not adequately addressed, it can impede overall healthy development in youths, potentially leading to various negative outcomes. A lack of access to SRHS exacerbates these health problems [4], increasing adverse outcomes like illness and death [24].

When appropriate SRHS are available, including family planning and abortion services, youth vulnerabilities to unintended pregnancy and STIs can be reduced [2528]. SRHS designed based on youth needs and preferences will promote usage [4]. The WHO, in collaboration with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) recommend youth participation in healthcare design and delivery, given their awareness of personal needs, to develop relevant solutions [14]. Ignoring youth perspectives risks service refusal and may stall progress towards quality sexual and reproductive health services [5, 14]. The current review explored the needs and preferences of youths of SRHS in SSA, with the aim to increase access.

Methods

This review employed a systematic approach. The revised Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards were followed to guide the identification and selection of relevant literature [29]. This review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022307530).

Ethics statement

As this study is a systematic review of published literature, it did not involve human or animal subjects, and therefore, did not require ethical approval. No primary data collection was conducted, and all data used were from publicly available sources.

Search strategy

The review question and search terms were structured according to the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) suggested framework: PICo, which represents Participants, Phenomena of interest, and Context [30] (S1 Fig). An initial scoping search was conducted in Ovid Medline to refine the review question and search terms. During the systematic search, medical subject headings (MeSH) were used in different databases to broaden the search terms [31]. The following four databases were searched: "Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System" (Ovid Medline), "Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature" (CINAHL plus), Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO), and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED). A citation search to identify additional relevant studies was also conducted. The S2 File presents the full search history on Ovid Medline, CINAHL plus and PsycINFO.

Eligibility criteria

Population

Youths aged 10–24 years in SSA were the target population. This is in line with the WHO’s definition of youth [1]. Excluded groups were homeless, internally displaced persons, and refugees as their SRHS needs may differ substantially due to their situation [32, 33].

Phenomena of interest

Studies must have reported at least one of these relevant phenomena regarding SRHS: needs, requirements, preferences, choices, options, wants, or desires. Studies relating to general healthcare needs rather than SRHS specifically were excluded.

Context

All countries in SSA were included in accordance with review aims. Likewise, all SRHS locations were considered, including schools, marketplaces, transport terminals, clubhouses, community centres, health facilities [34]. Both facility-based and community-based SRHS settings were eligible.

Publication types and study design

Inclusion was limited to published, peer-reviewed studies. Grey literature was excluded to ensure the quality and reliability of included sources, despite the potential for publication bias [35]. This decision was based on challenges in comprehensively identifying and accessing these sources, their heterogeneous nature, and potential lack of rigorous peer review. To mitigate potential bias, we conducted thorough searches across multiple major health and social science research databases, including medical, nursing, psychological, and allied and complementary medicine literature databases. Included papers were written in the English language, with the majority of African studies publish in English [36]. Unpublished studies, theses, conference papers, duplicates, and anecdotal reports were excluded because they may lack a transparent peer review process that ensures methodological rigor and may contain preliminary or duplicated data [35, 37]. Qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with distinct qualitative components (example, interviews, focus groups, observations) were included as they provide deeper understanding of youth’s needs and preferences related to SRHS [38, 39].

Study selection

Identified articles were transferred into EndNote version 20 and then into Rayyan software [40, 41] Besides manual removal, both software programs enabled the elimination of duplicates. Rayyan was used as a platform to screen article titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the eligibility criteria stated above to identify included reports ([41]; (See S2 Fig for PRISMA flow diagram). Prior to finalising the selection process, 10% check of titles and abstracts was conducted on the retrieved articles by two researchers independently (VU and LM) to compute an inter-rater reliability. We used Cohen’s kappa to assess inter-rater reliability. The specific Kappa values and their implications are reported in the results section.

Data extraction

A modified data extraction tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used [42]. The tool allowed for information such as author names, publication date, study title, study question/aims, participant demographics, design, population of interest, analysis methods, and findings to be captured from relevant studies. Data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers (VU and DS) with only qualitative data considered during the process.

Quality appraisal

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Group was adopted to judge the quality of the included studies [43]. Two researchers (VU and HW) independently assessed the quality of the included papers. The checklist consists of 10 questions (Q) focused on various aspects of the studies, including study aims, data collection methods, analysis, and results. Questions one to nine are closed-ended with three possible responses: ’yes,’ ’can’t tell,’ and ’no,’ while Q10 is an open-ended question. As noted by Long et al. [44], the CASP tool does not provide a standardised method for assessing the clarity and appropriateness of qualitative reporting. Therefore, to enhance transparency and facilitate inter-study comparison, we assigned scores to questions 1–9: ’yes’ = 2, ’can’t tell’ = 1, and ’no’ = 0. For Q10, we assigned scores of 2 for papers considered valuable and 1 for less valuable papers, based on our qualitative judgment (See S2 Table for quality appraisal summary). The scoring system allowed us to standardise the appraisal process, facilitate comparisons across studies, support overall quality judgments by categorising studies into low, medium, and high quality, and ensure transparency in our judgment. Importantly, no studies were excluded based on their scores. All papers, irrespective of quality scores, were included for their valuable contributions to the meta-ethnographic synthesis.

Data synthesis

A meta-ethnographic approach, developed by Noblit, Hare and Hare [45], was employed to explore the findings of the primary studies. This method allows for comparative integration of data rather than just description and is thus considered appropriate [46, 47]. Taking a meta-ethnography approach systematically transforms findings by drawing comparisons through the process of translation [45, 48]. Consequently, this approach enabled synthesis of youth’s SRHS needs and preferences across individual papers with greater explanatory power than narrative or thematic approaches [49, 50]. Its analytical nature and widespread use in non-ethnographies underscore its value [5154].

The included papers were read and re-read to identify codes and examine interrelationships [45]. Studies were then translated into one another through reciprocal translation to determine similarities and refutational synthesis to identify discrepancies between metaphors [45, 46, 55]. Subsequently, lines of argument were developed to reach a holistic interpretation [56]. In meta-ethnography, quality refers not to methods but to metaphor adequacy for rich data [48, 57]. To reduce bias, VU, DS, and HW were independently involved in synthesis of the data.

Results

Study selection

As illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (S2 Fig), an initial search was conducted in April 2022, and an updated search was performed in June 2023. The June 2023 search narrowed the date range to January 2022 to June 2023, aiming to capture papers published since the initial search conducted between February and April 2022. The combined searches yielded a total of 3,085 papers. After removing duplicates, 2,237 titles and abstracts were screened based on eligibility criteria. Of these, 2,216 papers were excluded for various reasons, including deficiency in more than one exclusion criterion (1,324), an incorrect target population (84), an incorrect phenomenon of interest (402), an unsuitable study design (95), either systematic or scoping reviews (60), grey literature (246), questionnaire development (1), and non-English language (1).

Cohen’s kappa (κ) computation was 0.12, indicating slight agreement. This necessitated a review of the inclusion criteria, and more terms (wants and options) were introduced to represent the needs and preferences of youth and expand the phenomenon of interest component. Then, a second check was done since slight agreement may not allow confidence in the review process [5860]. Cohen’s value for the second 10% check revealed 0.66, indicating substantial agreement, and subsequently disagreements were settled by consensus [58, 61].

Twenty-four articles passed abstract screening, and attempts were made to retrieve full texts. However, one full-text article that passed initial screening based on its title and abstract could not be accessed despite multiple attempts. The article was not available through open access or institutional subscriptions, and no author contact information was available to request the full text. As a result, this article was excluded. Consequently, 23 full-text articles were reviewed, of which three were subsequently excluded because one lacked data from youths while the other two used quantitative methods for data analysis. This led to the inclusion of 20 studies in the final review. The findings from the extraction are presented in a summary table reflecting the extent of available evidence in the accepted studies (see S1 Table for data extraction summary).

Quality appraisal

The appraisal of the included papers using the CASP tool revealed generally sound methodological quality across the studies (see S2 Table). Most studies described an appropriate methodology suitable for their stated research aims and objectives. However, a notable deficiency in many studies was observed concerning the declaration of potential biases [6264]. Additionally, based on the quality judgement, one article [65] appeared to be of relatively low quality compared to the others. Nevertheless, no studies were excluded solely based on quality, as the authors were primarily interested in extracting relevant concepts from all included studies that directly mapped to the systematic review question.

Study characteristics

The 20 included studies involved participants ranging in age from 10 to 24 years old. Two papers specifically targeted females [64, 75], while the remaining 18 included both male and female. Eight papers focused on youths living with HIV [62, 63, 66, 7274]. The studies were conducted in various countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya (3), Malawi (1), Nigeria (2), South Africa (6), Uganda (2), and Zambia (5). Seven studies were community-based, 12 were conducted in healthcare facilities, and one was a school-based study.

Synthesis

The meta-ethnographic synthesis resulted in four key themes encapsulating the breadth of sexual and reproductive health needs and preferences expressed by youths across the included studies; information needs, social needs, service needs and delivery preferences (Table 1). These four key themes encompassed multiple nested sub-themes and are represented below with participant quotes.

Table 1. This is the table showing main themes and sub-themes.

Themes Sub-Themes
Information Needs • Age-appropriate information
• Raising awareness
Service Needs • Health promotion and preventive services
• Treatment services
Delivery Preferences • Provider characteristics
• Logistics of service delivery
Social Needs • Skills acquisition programmes
• Substance use rehabilitation
• Support systems

Theme 1—Information needs

This theme emerged across all included studies, highlighting youths’ desire for information on safe reproductive and sexual health topics like contraception and condom use. As one participant stated: “people are no longer given deep information about these things [sexual health], they are only given average information” [64]. No refuting perspectives arose for this theme, although information preferences differed by gender [66, 67]. Males wanted details on proper condom use—“…the need for condoms, you can go to the health facility and they give them to you but there are some people who do not know how to use them” [68]. Females preferred information on menstruation, relationships, hygiene, safer sex, and abortion to avoid unsafe procedures and consequences: “They don’t get good counselling or advice on how they can protect and take care of the pregnancies. So they end up aborting” [68]. This theme had two sub-themes: age-appropriate information and raising awareness.

Age-Appropriate Information: Youths expressed needing information tailored to their age covering bodily changes, contraceptives, safer sex, and sexual health issues to meet their needs [67, 6971]. As one noted: “I have tried to ask them for more information but they did not give me enough. What they told me was not very useful…" [72]. HIV-positive youths also wanted productive life information regardless of status [7274], stating: “We have a right to having a family and have children” [72]. Some studies revealed misunderstandings around conception and prevention [63, 67, 74]. Youths faced barriers obtaining age-appropriate information, including provider disconnects on suitability—"sometimes we go to clinics and then they say ‘why do you want to know, you are still too young…‴ [75]—and discussing sexual health with parents due to stigma [75]. Hence information often came from peers and siblings instead: "yeah, sisters educate about abortion and they even tell you that abortion is no easy matter because you are then between life and death. They actually teach us about many things’’ [75]. Mass media was acknowledged a major source SRH information [75].

Raising Awareness: Youths emphasised awareness raising for parents, youths and communities regarding youth needs and preferences to ensure access to information and services [70, 76, 77]. Stigma and misconceptions were cited as barriers: "Stigma, if you are seen going to the hospital, it’s like you’re engaging in sex. So, society will have a particular perception of you" [69]; parents disapproved due to stigma [62, 64]. Parent sensitisation was thus needed: "Parents do not want to give their children time to access this information, maybe because they feel it is not the right time… but generally somebody who is 15 years, that one to me needs lots of counselling and guidance from both home and outside home” [69]. Community outreach could also raise awareness of available services [68, 70, 76]. If services are perceived as meeting youths’ needs, utilisation may increase [14].

Theme 2: Social needs

Social contexts including the acquisition of skills, substance use rehabilitation, and support systems shaped youth SRH needs. Targeted programmes in these areas were acknowledged to promote healthier sexual and reproductive health behaviours. Three sub-themes encapsulate these social needs: Skill acquisition programmes, substance use rehabilitation, and support systems.

Skill acquisition programmes: Youths required skills for healthy relationships and economic productivity [67, 72, 76]. Desired skills included negotiation, decision-making, and refusal skills to avoid unsafe sex practices [67, 72, 76]. As one female noted, such skills could empower responses to unwanted sexual advances: “If a boy is forcing you…what must you do?” [67]. Vocational skills, such as sewing and catering, were sought to address economic challenges and empower youths, with gender-specific preferences [72]. "…one thing that I would really like is being taught life skills because as it is, no one teaches us these things. I would like to learn how to cook, and also tailoring" [72].

Substance use rehabilitation: Rehabilitation was needed to address links between substance use and sexual violence. As youths explained, “Things that cause rapes are the use of drugs…[which] may also cause raping a child” [69]. lack of job opportunities and peer pressure were identified as substance use triggers-"Most of the youths don’t have what to do—they resort to taking alcohol, opium, cigarettes and marijuana" [68].

Support Systems: Family and peer support encouraged SRH service use [74, 76], "You need support from people who will understand your condition" [67]. However, negative parental attitudes hindered communication and support-seeking behaviours: "When we ask our parents they become aggressive, they shout at us not wanting to talk to us, saying, ‘why do want to know about such things‴ [75]. Youths living with HIV express varying attitudes toward family support, highlighting the importance of early parental disclosure for timely treatment: "The fact my family kept this from me made me very sad; [for a time] I hated my mother" [74]. Support groups foster positive networks, aiding youths in coping with SRH-related stress, although concerns about disclosure exist among some HIV-positive youths: "It will hurt if other people know, they will joke about it" [73].

Theme 3: Service needs

Youths wanted services directly addressing their sexual and reproductive health issues. The need for a wide range of services was reported due to perceived gaps at local health facilities [65, 67, 69, 71, 77]. This theme had two sub-themes: preventive services and treatment services.

Preventive Services: All studies noted youths wanting health promotion and preventive sexual and reproductive services like HIV testing and counselling, antenatal care, counselling, and contraceptives: “If we use contraceptives we can have a manageable number of children, rather than having so many that we can’t raise them” [78]. Lacking these, risky alternatives emerged [6668], example, “make their own condoms—using bread bags—so they won’t be seen trying to get condoms in public” [67]. Services were seen as only for married couples, not youths: “I have not received such (family planning services), and I don’t think it is made for adolescents. It is only for married couples" [79].

Treatment Services: Youths across all studies wanted STI testing and treatment services for issues like candidiasis, syphilis, and HIV/AIDS [65, 70, 71, 78]: “…when you get infected with diseases like Candida…we fall sick all of the time, the trenches here spread diseases due to poor sanitation” [71]. Reported lack of access may drive this demand: “She had been to Kasangati health centre and they told her that the drugs are not there…” [68]. One study mentioned needing timely referrals for serious cases [65]. With unmet treatment needs, youths often relied on peers or unsafe options like herbs or traditional healers [66, 68, 76]: “When we get problems, sometimes we tell our friends…so that is what she is using” [68]. Access to such services is critical to reduce youth suffering, morbidity and mortality.

Theme 4- Delivery preferences

The theme indicates youth dissatisfaction with SRHS in healthcare facilities, evident in all included papers, with two subthemes: provider characteristics and logistics of service delivery.

Provider characteristics: Youths prefer providers offering high-quality SRHS, emphasising welcomeness, trustworthiness, respect, confidentiality, friendliness, same-gender providers, and competency [64, 69, 70, 72, 80]. Negative provider attitudes, lack of privacy, and rudeness deter youths from public health facilities [68, 72, 76]. Youths living with HIV requested autonomy in disclosure and challenge providers to respect their confidentiality—"Everyone was looking at me in a funny way and whispering, ‘This is the one who is sick, she has AIDS.’ This was very painful for me because I thought that it was my right to disclose to people about my status. I felt that my rights were violated" [72]. Negative experiences lead youths to favour competent, non-judgmental providers [68, 70].

In some studies, youths express discomfort with providers of the opposite-sex, while others prefer gender-specific providers—“Sometimes it is difficult or embarrassing to open up to someone of the opposite sex” [77]. The need for same-gender preference may be related to youth’s personal values, which tend to shape the life of an individual. Younger SRH providers were seen as being more equipped to understand and address the SRHS of youths and would relate with the youths in an appropriate manner- ‘‘Younger staff can understand challenges facing adolescents and address our issues as adolescents…” [66]. However, in some other studies youths preferred older SRH providers. Older providers were viewed as experienced and, therefore, competent in the delivery of SRHS—‘‘… it is better to get information from experienced adults like your mother or health staff” [66].

Logistics of service delivery: Youths desire dedicated SRHS facilities, adequate staffing, quality medical supplies, free services, short wait times, and youth reward systems [78, 79, 81]. They preferred services tailored to their needs and reported dissatisfaction with existing facilities and claimed they were designed for adults [68, 72, 76]. Youths desired attractive youth-friendly clinics with recreational facilities and enough staff [76]—‘‘…I can go there to play, to watch movies, I can be guided, I can be tested” [76]. Cost and long waits in existing facilities hindered access, prompting a preference for free services and rewards [77, 78]. Financial constraints and poverty further challenged youths’ SRHS access to SRH services [71, 72]. Thus, youth-oriented services and understanding providers were lacking, leading youths to relying on social media or traditional healers instead [66, 68, 72, 76, 80].

Discussion

This review explored the SRHS needs and preferences of youths aged 10–24 in SSA. The synthesis of evidence highlights the importance of targeted information, alignment of SRH services to diverse youth needs, addressing social needs for holistic SRHS, and tailoring delivery preferences to empower and enhance the SRH experiences of this population.

Youth empowerment through targeted information

A key finding of this review is that youths strongly desire age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health information, but often lack access to reliable sources. Sexual and reproductive health information has demonstrated benefits in preparing youths against risks of unsafe behaviours [82, 83]. However, youths lack access to age-appropriate information, relying on uncertain social or peer sources instead [4]. For example, in one study [75], youths reported seeking information from older siblings or friends, often receiving inaccurate or incomplete information. Guided, professionally informed education tailored to maturity levels could aid healthy development [84, 85]. The current review supports this finding that SRH education is most effective when it is professionally informed and guided based on the maturity levels and needs of youths. This is because, most youths were ill-prepared on reproductive changes, desiring parental and provider discussions to facilitate access and dispel stigma [68]. Empowering youths with desired knowledge also promote healthy sexuality attitudes [83]. In line with this, our review suggests that guided education may be associated with the development of healthy sexuality perspectives and potentially protective against risky sexual and reproductive behaviours among youths. As youths understand their needs, ensuring youths can access age-appropriate sexual health information is critical to empowering them to understand their bodies and make healthy SRH choices.

Aligning SRH services to diverse youth needs

Our findings reveal a significant mismatch between available SRH services and the diverse needs of youth in SSA. In the current review, papers identified various youth SRH needs ranging from promotion and preventive to treatment services. Findings demonstrated gaps in aligning care and environments to youth realities. As a result, there is an increased prevalence of unsafe self-help alternatives [68, 86]. For instance, in one study [67], youths reported using makeshift condoms from bread bags due to lack of access to proper contraceptives, highlighting the urgent need for accessible preventive services. This situation, predominant in low- and middle-income countries, where systemic shortcomings, such as social stigma, taboos, and restrictive policies, often hinder the effective positioning of SRH services in relation to youth realities [8789]. However, in high-income countries, initiatives have aimed at tailoring SRH services to better suit youths, promoting better coordination, and addressing diverse needs [90]. These disparities contribute to adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes [34, 91]. Thus, emphasising the imperative for increased attention and tailored strategies in these regions to bridge the gap and improve the provision of youth-friendly SRH services [92, 93]. Comprehensive SRH services are embodied rights for youth development [91]. Yet findings showed youths do not seek facility-based SRH services, due to perceived unavailability of services and stigma. Addressing negative social norms through community dialogue and sensitisation could dispel misconceptions and promote access to quality SRH services [94, 95]. Additionally, most youths want quality clinical services from competent providers. Ensuring available, accessible, non-judgmental youth-focused SRH services should be a priority.

Addressing social needs for holistic SRHS

Our review highlights the interconnectedness of social factors and SRH outcomes among youth in SSA. Acknowledging the intertwined social and economic factors influencing youth SRHS outcomes, skills development programmes that consider gender preferences may facilitate healthy decision-making capacities [5, 72]. Integrated substance abuse and mental health services have also been identified as critical for reducing risky behaviours [9698]. High-income countries like the UK and US have adopted a more holistic approach, shifting certain centres towards a one-stop model that integrates clinical, social, and educational support [97, 98]. Meanwhile, initiatives in countries such as Mexico, India, and South Africa have incorporated life skills building, education, vocational training, and livelihood support alongside clinical SRH services [99101]. Such comprehensive models agree with the multifaceted youth needs and preferences, showing promise for improving access and health outcomes. However, youth-centred comprehensive SRHS remains less uniformly implemented in sub-Saharan Africa [102, 103]. As Hujo and Carter [104] argue, more holistic community-based approaches may be better suited to address the multidimensional youth realities in this region, yet require greater resource mobilisation and political backing for realisation. Additional implementation research could catalyse suitable integrated services for marginalised African youth [102, 104]. In conducting such research, recognising familial and peer support as identified facilitators for SRHS access further emphasises the potential value of social network integration into youth SRHS programmes [105, 106]. Such comprehensive models align with youth preferences and show promise for improving access and health outcomes.

Tailoring delivery preferences for youths

The review illuminates the significance of provider characteristics (welcomeness, trustworthiness, respect, confidentiality) and logistics of delivery (adequate staffing, quality supplies, free services) in shaping youths’ experiences with SRHS [4, 70]. Unfavourable provider attitudes contribute to barriers in accessing SRHS, necessitating training guided by WHO’s quality standards [13, 14]. Specifically, WHO’s recommendation for youth-friendly health services include accessible locations and hours, lower cost, respectful and confidential care, peer counselling, comprehensive services, provider competencies, youth and community involvement [13, 14]. Preferences for same-sex providers, youth-only centres, and incentives accentuate the importance of recognising and respecting youths’ choices for effective SRHS [1, 62, 106]. Recognising and integrating youths’ preferences is critical for uptake and sustained engagement with SRHS. The COM-B model identifies capability, opportunity, and motivation as key components that need to be targeted for successful interventions aimed at changing behaviour [107109]. Addressing these areas in youth-friendly services can directly enable youths to access and engage with sexual and reproductive health services.

Implications and recommendations for practice

Our findings have several important implications for the delivery of youth SRHS in SSA:

  1. There is a clear need for more comprehensive, youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services tailored to meet the informational and service needs of youth.

  2. Stigma and lack of awareness remain significant barriers to youth accessing SRHS.

  3. Current healthcare provider practices often do not align with youth preferences and needs.

  4. Existing health facilities are not designed with youth needs in mind.

  5. There is a strong link between life skills, economic factors, and sexual health outcomes for youth.

Based on these implications, we recommend the following actions:

  1. Develop and implement age-appropriate education programmes, including access to contraception, STI testing and treatment, and counselling.

  2. Launch awareness campaigns to reduce stigma around youth sexual health topics in communities and facilitate more open communication with both health providers and parents/families.

  3. Provide additional training for healthcare providers on delivering youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services.

  4. Establish dedicated youth health facilities that are appealing, well-staffed, and provide comprehensive, free or low-cost services with minimal wait times.

  5. Develop programmes to equip youth with life skills including healthy relationship building, decision making around sexual behaviours, and economic empowerment skills.

  6. Establish accessible counselling and rehabilitation services tailored to youth, addressing the links between risky sexual behaviours and issues like substance use.

These recommendations are derived directly from our synthesis of the included studies and aim to address the key needs and preferences identified in our review.

Strength and limitations

This review boasts several strengths in its systematic approach. We conducted comprehensive searches across multiple databases to identify relevant studies on youth SRHS in SSA. Screening and quality appraisal were meticulously carried out by two independent reviewers, and the utilisation of meta-ethnography methodology adheres to guidance on robust qualitative evidence synthesis. By synthesising insights across primary studies, this review offers qualitative evidence on the delivery situation of youth SRHS in SSA, potentially informing strategic planning to develop safer, more youth-friendly services in this region. However, it is worth noting that as only qualitative research was included, we refrained from making definitive judgments on cause-and-effect relationships. Future mixed-methods reviews could explore provider attitudes and quantitatively assess youth SRHS needs and preferences. Furthermore, while this review specifically represents perspectives within sub-Saharan Africa, broader reviews would facilitate a global comparison of youth needs. Notably, we acknowledge the limitation of not citing grey literature data, which could have provided valuable insights into government and institutional responses to issues such as drug abuse, violence, and HIV, thereby impacting the management of these significant public health challenges..

Conclusion

This review has indicated that sexual and reproductive healthcare services in SSA are currently not tailored to align with the needs and preferences of youths aged 10–24. This departure from the WHO-recommended delivery gold standard highlights a pressing need to rectify existing gaps in the provision of sexual and reproductive health services. While globally generalisable solutions are unrealistic, a multifaceted approach is required to meet the needs and preferences of youths across information, service, social and delivery realms to ensure access to and well-being of youth sexual and reproductive health. Key youth preferences centre on desiring guided education matched to maturity levels, tailoring of available SRH services to their diverse needs, integration of social dimensions like skills training, and youth-friendly delivery considerations around provider characteristics and atmospheres. Further research is needed to:

  1. Develop and evaluate youth-centred models of SRHS delivery that integrate these preferences.

  2. Assess the effectiveness of integrated services that combine clinical care with life skills training and economic empowerment programmes.

  3. Conduct implementation studies on how to effectively scale up promising interventions in resource-limited settings.

These research directions aim to bridge the gap between youth preferences and current service provision, ultimately improving access and outcomes. Understanding and incorporating youths’ needs and preferences in the planning of sexual and reproductive health services will be imperative to enhancing overall youth welfare in SSA.

Supporting information

S1 File. List of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s001.pdf (79.1KB, pdf)
S2 File. File Search histories.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s002.pdf (121.7KB, pdf)
S1 Table. Data extraction summary on youth’s needs and preferences regarding SRHS in sub-Saharan Africa.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s003.pdf (233.8KB, pdf)
S2 Table. CASP appraisal of included papers on the needs and preferences of youths regarding sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s004.pdf (296.9KB, pdf)
S3 Table. List of included and excluded studies.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s005.pdf (167KB, pdf)
S4 Table. Full data extraction table based on the data extraction tool used.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s006.pdf (452.3KB, pdf)
S1 Fig. PICo framework for review question and search terms.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s007.pdf (124.8KB, pdf)
S2 Fig. PRISMA flow diagram showing stages of study selection.

(PDF)

pone.0300829.s008.pdf (255.6KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for the support provided during this review. Special thanks to Leah Millard of the University of Manchester, United Kingdom for her dedicated screening of a percentage of titles and abstracts, enhancing the rigour of this review. The authors also extend their appreciation to the participants and researchers whose work contributed to the primary studies included in this review. Their invaluable contributions have enriched the synthesis of evidence presented in this manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. J Adolesc Health. [Cited 02 December 2023]. https://www.who.int/southeastasia/health-topics/adolescent-health. 2023.
  • 2.Singh JA, Siddiqi M, Parameshwar P, Chandra-Mouli V. World Health Organization guidance on ethical considerations in planning and reviewing research studies on sexual and reproductive health in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2019. Apr;64: 427–429. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.008 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.van Sluijs EMF, Ekelund U, Crochemore-Silva I, Guthold R, Ha A, Lubans D et al. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet. 2021;398: 429–442. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01259-9 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ninsiima LR, Chiumia IK, Ndejjo R. Factors influencing access to and utilisation of youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Reprod Health. 2021;18: 135. doi: 10.1186/s12978-021-01183-y • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.George AS, Amin A, de Abreu Lopes CM, Ravindran TKS. Structural determinants of gender inequality: why they matter for adolescent girls’ sexual and reproductive health. BMJ. 2020;368: l6985. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6985 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ibitoye M, Choi C, Tai H, Lee G, Sommer M. Early menarche: A systematic review of its effect on sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0178884. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178884 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liang M, Simelane S, Fortuny Fillo G, Chalasani S, Weny K, Salazar Canelos P et al. The state of adolescent sexual and reproductive health. J Adolesc Health. 2019;65: S3–S15. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.015 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Uka VK, Ekpoanwan EE, Nsemo AD, Etowa JB. Sexual and reproductive health services awareness and utilisation among young people in a semi-Urban community in Cross River State, Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2023;27: 58–70. doi: 10.29063/ajrh2023/v27i5s.8 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Namoro SD. Youth reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa. Is governance part of the problem? [Cited 7 July 2022] https://ideas.repec.org/p/pit/wpaper/347.html (No. 347); 2009.
  • 10.Omo-Aghoja LO, Aisien OA, Akuse JT, Bergstrom S, Okonofua FE. Maternal mortality and emergency obstetric care in Benin City, South-south Nigeria. J Clin Med Res. 2010;2: 55–61 • Google Scholar.21811520 [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sommers M. Urban youth in Africa. Environ Urb. 2010;22: 317–332. doi: 10.1177/0956247810377964 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wado YD, Bangha M, Kabiru CW, Feyissa GT. Nature of, and responses to key sexual and reproductive health challenges for adolescents in urban slums in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review. Reprod Health. 2020;17: 149. doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-00998-5 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.World Health Organisation. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs). [Cited 23 January, 2024]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted-infections-(stis); 2023.
  • 14.World Health Organisation. Global standards for quality health care services for adolescents. Geneva. [cited 28 October 2021). https://www.who.int/news/item/06-10-2015-who-unaids-launch-new-standards-to-improve-adolescent-care; 2015.
  • 15.United Nations Children Emergency Fund. (2023). Adolescent HIV prevention. https://data.unicef.org/topic/hivaids/adolescents-young-people/ [cited 05 September 2023].
  • 16.Santhya KG, Acharya R, Pandey N, Singh SK, Rampal S, Zavier AJ et al. Understanding the lives of adolescents and young adults (UDAYA) in Bihar, India. https://www.projectudaya.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/UP-Report-pdf.pdf; 2017.
  • 17.Glynn JR, Sunny BS, DeStavola B, Dube A, Chihana M, Price AJ et al. Early school failure predicts teenage pregnancy and marriage: A large population-based cohort study in northern Malawi. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0196041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196041 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goossens G, Kadji C, Delvenne V. Teenage pregnancy: a psychopathological risk for mothers and babies? Psychiatr Danub. 2015. Sep;27 Suppl 1: S499–S503. • Google Scholar. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aderibigbe SA, Araoye MO, Akande TM, Monehin JO, Musa OI, Babatunde OA. Teenage pregnancy and prevalence of abortion among in-school adolescents in North Central, Nigeria. Asian Soc Sci. 2011;7: 122. doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n1p122 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bhandari SD, Joshi S. Perception and perceived experiences about prevention and consequences of teenage pregnancy and childbirth among teenage mothers: A qualitative study. J Adv Acad Res. 2016;3: 164–172. doi: 10.3126/jaar.v3i1.16625 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Irvine H, Bradley T, Cupples M, Boohan M. The implications of teenage pregnancy and motherhood for primary health care: unresolved issues’. Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47: 323–326. Google Scholar. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hegde A, Chandran S, Pattnaik JI. Understanding adolescent sexuality: A developmental perspective. J Psychosexual Health. 2022;4: 237–242. doi: 10.1177/26318318221107598 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Baumrind D, Moselle KA. A developmental perspective on adolescent drug abuse. InAlcohol and substance abuse in adolescence 2014. May 22 (pp. 41–68). Routledge. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nair MK, Paul MK, John R. Prevalence of depression among adolescents’. Indian J Pediatr. 2004;71: 523–524. doi: 10.1007/BF02724294 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bearinger LH, Sieving RE, Ferguson J, Sharma V. ‘Global perspectives on the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents: Patterns, prevention, and potential’ The f. Lancet. 2007;369: 1220–1231. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60367-5 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Igras SM, Macieira M, Murphy E, Lundgren R. Investing in very young adolescents’ sexual and reproductive health. Glob Public Health. 2014;9: 555–569. [Epub 2014 May 13]. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.908230 • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ojong IN, Chiotu CN, Duke EU, Uka VK. School-based survey of adolescents’ opinion on premarital sex in selected secondary schools in yakurr local government area, Cross River State, Nigeria. Glob J Pure Appl Sci. 2015;21: 191–195. doi: 10.4314/gjpas.v21i2.11 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Biddlecom AE, Munthali A, Singh S, Woog V. Adolescents’ views of and preferences for sexual and reproductive health services in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi and Uganda. Afr J Reprod Health. 2007. Dec;11: 99–110. doi: 10.2307/25549734 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88: 105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Joanna Briggs institute. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: 2.6.2 Review question. [Cited 13 October 2023]. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/ MANUAL/4688141/ 2.6.2+ Review+question; 2022.
  • 31.Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 74. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hindin MJ, Fatusi AO. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health in developing countries: an overview of trends and interventions. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;35: 58–62. doi: 10.1363/ipsrh.35.058.09 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Akinsulure-Smith AM, Dachos N, Jones WL. Nah we yone’s de fambul camp: facilitating resilience in displaced african children. J Immigr Refugee Stud. AL. 2013;11: 221–240. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2013.801721 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Denno DM, Hoopes AJ, Chandra-Mouli V. Effective strategies to provide adolescent sexual and reproductive health services and to increase demand and community support. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56 (1) Suppl: S22–S41. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.012 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews’. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10: 233–240. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12266 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Page MJ, Higgins JP, Sterne JA. Chapter 13. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-13. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis; 2019. pp. 349–374.
  • 37.McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29: 440–454. doi: 10.1177/0163278706293400 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yates J, Leggett T. Qualitative research: an introduction. Radiol Technol. 2016;88: 225–231. Google Scholar. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Li Y, Zhang S. Qualitative Data Analysis. Applied Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning. 2022; 149–165. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-93574-0_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Harrison H, Griffin SJ, Kuhn I, Usher-Smith JA. Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20: 7. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Valizadeh A, Moassefi M, Nakhostin-Ansari A, Hosseini Asl SH, Saghab Torbati M, Aghajani R et al. Abstract screening using the automated tool Rayyan: results of effectiveness in three diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22: 160. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01631-8 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Noyes J, Lewin S; 2011. Chapter 5. Extracting qualitative evidence. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J et al., editors. Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. version 1 [Updated August 2011]. Cochrane: Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. [Cited 02 July 2022]. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP qualitative studies checklist [online]. [Cited 07 July 2022]. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/; 2018.
  • 44.Long HA, French DP, Brooks JM. Optimising the value of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res Methods Med. Health Sci. 2020;1: 31–42. doi: 10.1177/2632084320947559 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnogr Synthesizing Qual Stud. 1988. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/meta-ethnography/book2416;11. sage.
  • 46.Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011. Dec;15: 1–164. doi: 10.3310/hta15430 • • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings. Nurs Res. 2003;52: 226–233. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200307000-00004 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019. Jan 31;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7: 209–215. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432732 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cahill M, Robinson K, Pettigrew J, Galvin R, Stanley M. Qualitative synthesis: a guide to conducting a meta-ethnography. Br J Occup Ther. 2018;81: 129–137. doi: 10.1177/0308022617745016 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Alcántara Porcuna V, Rodríguez-Martín B. Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of physical activity in schools: A meta-ethnography. J Sch Nurs. 2022;38: 98–109. doi: 10.1177/1059840520972005 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bell Z, Scott S, Visram S, Rankin J, Bambra C, Heslehurst N. Experiences and perceptions of nutritional health and wellbeing amongst food insecure women in Europe: A qualitative meta-ethnography. Soc Sci Med. 2022;311: 115313. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115313 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Elmir R, Schmied V, Wilkes L, Jackson D. Women’s perceptions and experiences of a traumatic birth: A meta‐ethnography. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66: 2142–2153. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05391.x • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lyons S, Currie S, Peters S, Lavender T, Smith DM. The perceptions and experiences of women with a body mass index ≥ 30 kg m2 who breastfeed: A meta-synthesis. Matern Child Nutr. 2019. Jul;15: e12813. [Epub 2019 Apr 26]. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12813 • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Barker K. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14: 80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-80 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8: 21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-21 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26: 1753–1760. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968. Oct;70: 213–220. doi: 10.1037/h0026256 • • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22: 276–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.03.005 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Park CU, Kim HJ. Measurement of inter-rater reliability in systematic review. Hanyang Med Rev. 2015;35: 44–49. doi: 10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.44 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, De Vet HC, Van der Windt DA et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2: 9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Adhiambo HF, Ngayo M, Kwena Z. Preferences for accessing sexual and reproductive health services among adolescents and young adults living with HIV/AIDS in Western Kenya: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0277467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277467 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.McCarraher DR, Packer C, Mercer S, Dennis A, Banda H, Nyambe N et al. Adolescents living with HIV in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia: their reproductive health needs and experiences. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0197853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197853 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Twitty TD, Hitch AE, Marais L, Sales JM, Sharp C, Cloete J et al. Pregnancy and STI/HIV prevention intervention preferences of South African adolescent girls: findings from a cultural consensus modelling qualitative study. Cult Health Sex. 2024. Feb;26: 191–207. [Epub 2023 Apr 6]. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2023.2194357 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Olukoya AA. Provision of Reproductive Health Services for Adolescents‐‐Report of a Study in Two Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Nigeria. Early Child Development and Care. 1996. Jan 1;120(1):95–117. doi: 10.1080/0300443961200108 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Smith P, Marcus R, Bennie T, Nkala B, Nchabeleng M, Latka MH et al. What do South African adolescents want in a sexual health service? Evidence from the South African Studies on HIV in Adolescents (SASHA) project. S Afr Med J. 2018;108: 677–681. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2018.v108i8.13013 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Vujovic M, Struthers H, Meyersfeld S, Dlamini K, Mabizela N. Addressing the sexual and reproductive health needs of young adolescents living with HIV in South Africa. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;45: 122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.028 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Atuyambe LM, Kibira SP, Bukenya J, Muhumuza C, Apolot RR, Mulogo E. Understanding sexual and reproductive health needs of adolescents: evidence from a formative evaluation in Wakiso District, Uganda. Reprod Health. 2015;12: 35. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0026-7 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mutea L, Ontiri S, Kadiri F, Michielesen K, Gichangi P. Access to information and use of adolescent sexual reproductive health services: qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators in Kisumu and Kakamega, Kenya. PLOS ONE. 2020;15: e0241985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241985 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Schriver B, Meagley K, Norris S, Geary R, Stein AD. Young people’s perceptions of youth-oriented health services in urban Soweto, South Africa: a qualitative investigation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14: 625. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0625-y • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tuhebwe D, Babirye S, Ssendagire S, Ssengooba F. The extent to which the design of available reproductive health interventions fit the reproductive health needs of adolescents living in urban poor settings of Kisenyi, Kampala, Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2021;21: 933. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10933-3 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Mburu G, Hodgson I, Teltschik A, Ram M, Haamujompa C, Bajpai D et al. Rights-based services for adolescents living with HIV: adolescent self-efficacy and implications for health systems in Zambia. Reprod Health Matters. 2013;21: 176–185. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(13)41701-9 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Adams L, Crowley T. Adolescent human immunodeficiency virus self-management: needs of adolescents in the Eastern Cape. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2021;13: e1–e9. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v13i1.2756 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hodgson I, Ross J, Haamujompa C, Gitau-Mburu D. Living as an adolescent with HIV in Zambia—lived experiences, sexual health and reproductive needs. AIDS Care. 2012;24: 1204–1210. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2012.658755 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Lince-Deroche N, Hargey A, Holt K, Shochet T. Accessing sexual and reproductive health information and services: A mixed methods study of young women’s needs and experiences in Soweto, South Africa. Afr J Reprod Health. 2015;19: 73–81. Google Scholar. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Godia PM, Olenja JM, Hofman JJ, Van Den Broek N. Young people’s perception of sexual and reproductive health services in Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14: 172. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-172 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Simuyaba M, Hensen B, Phiri M, Mwansa C, Mwenge L, Kabumbu M et al. Engaging young people in the design of a sexual reproductive health intervention: lessons learnt from the Yathu Yathu ("For us, by us") formative study in Zambia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021. Jul 29;21: 753. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06696-7 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Self A, Chipokosa S, Misomali A, Aung T, Harvey SA, Chimchere M et al. Youth accessing reproductive health services in Malawi: drivers, barriers, and suggestions from the perspectives of youth and parents. Reprod Health. 2018. Jun 19;15: 108. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0549-9 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Odo AN, Samuel ES, Nwagu EN, Nnamani PO, Atama CS. Sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) for adolescents in Enugu state, Nigeria: a mixed methods approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18: 92. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2779-x • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Mmari KN, Magnani RJ. Does making clinic-based reproductive health services more youth-friendly increase service use by adolescents? Evidence from Lusaka, Zambia. J Adolesc Health. 2003;33: 259–270. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00062-4 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Kimo K, Makuria K. ‘Adolescents’ reproductive health problems, service preferences, and accessibility. Pak J Psychol Res. 2017;32: 407–427. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Mosavi SA, Babazadeh R, Najmabadi KM, Shariati M. Assessing Iranian adolescent girls’ needs for sexual and reproductive health information. J Adolesc Health. 2014;55: 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.029 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Starrs AM, Ezeh AC, Barker G, Basu A, Bertrand JT, Blum R et al. Accelerate progress-sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: report of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2018. Jun 30;391: 2642–2692. [Epub 2018 May 9]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30293-9 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Reid Chassiakos YL, Radesky J, Christakis D, Moreno MA, Cross C, COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA. Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics. 2016. Nov;138: e20162593. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2593 • • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Pringle J, Mills KL, McAteer J, Jepson R, Hogg E, Anand N et al. The physiology of adolescent sexual behaviour: A systematic review. Cogent Soc Sci. 2017;3: 1368858. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2017.1368858 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Gbadamosi IT. Ethnobotanical survey of plants used for the treatment and management of sexually transmitted infections in Ibadan, Nigeria. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2014;12: 659–669. Available from: https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/945. doi: 10.17348/era.12.0.659-669 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Denno DM, Hoopes AJ, Chandra-Mouli V. Providing adolescent-friendly reproductive health services through public health facilities in resource-constrained settings: a review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66: S7–S17. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Mmari K, Lantos H, Brahmbhatt H, Delany-Moretlwe S, Lou C, Acharya R et al. How adolescents perceive their communities: a qualitative study that explores the relationship between health and the physical environment. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 349. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-349 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zenebe GA, Ewunie TM, Belay MM, Abose AM. Quality of adolescent and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2023. Jul 12;11:1191676. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1191676 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Chandra-Mouli V, Plesons M, Hadi S, Baig Q, Lang I. Building support for adolescent sexuality and reproductive health education and responding to resistance in conservative contexts: cases from Pakistan. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018. Mar 30;6: 128–136. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00285 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.United Nations Population Fund. The power of 1.8 billion: adolescents, youth and the transformation of the future. [Cited 15 January 2024]. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/EN-SWOP14-Report_FINAL-web.pdf; 2014.
  • 92.Chandra-Mouli V, Lane C, Wong S. What does not work in adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a review of evidence on interventions commonly accepted as best practices. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015. Aug 31;3: 333–340. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00126 • • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Denno DM, Chandra-Mouli V, Osman M. Reaching youth with out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services: a systematic review. J Adolesc Health. 2012;51: 106–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.004 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Akinwale Oladayo Damilola, Bello Cecilia Bukola, Akpor Oluwaseyi Abiodun, Elemile Mayowa Grace. Evaluation of adolescent/youth.friendly sexual and reproductive health services: A 7-year systematic review from January 2016 to April 2022. J Integr Nurs. Oct-Dec 2022;4: 177–192. doi: 10.4103/jin.jin_79_22 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Envuladu EA, Massar K, de Wit J. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health care service availability and delivery in public health facilities of plateau state Nigeria. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18: 1369. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041369 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Khadr SN, Jones KG, Mann S, Hale DR, Johnson AM, Viner RM et al. Investigating the relationship between substance use and sexual behaviour in young people in Britain: findings from a national probability survey. BMJ Open. 2016;6: e011961. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011961 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Hetrick SE, Bailey AP, Smith KE, Malla A, Mathias S, Singh SP et al. Integrated (one-stop shop) youth health care: best available evidence and future directions. Med J Aust. 2017. Nov 20;207: S5–S18. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00694 • • Google Scholar [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Department of Health and Social Care. ‘You’re Welcome’: establishing youth-friendly health and care services [online]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications /establishing-youth-friendly-health-and-care-services/youre-welcome-establishing-youth-friendly-health-and-care-services; 2023.
  • 99.García-Bello LA, Heredia-Pi IB, Zavala-Arciniega L, Paz-Ballesteros W, Velázquez-Viamonte A, Serván-Mori E. E. Care friendliness in adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in Mexico and a characterisation of their clients. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022. Dec;37 Suppl 1: 204–219. [Epub 2022 Jun 6]. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3512 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Ranjan S, Nair AR. Approaches and strategies for effective implementation of Life Skills Education. Int J Life Skills Educ. 2015;1: 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Ubisi L. Analysing the hegemonic discourses on comprehensive sexuality education in South African schools. J Educ. University of KwaZulu-Natal. 2020;(81): 118–135. doi: 10.17159/2520-9868/i81a07 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Mbeba RM, Mkuye MS, Magembe GE, Yotham WL, Mellah AO, Mkuwa SB. Barriers to sexual reproductive health services and rights among young people in Mtwara District, Tanzania: a qualitative study. Pan Afr Med J. 2012;13 Suppl 1 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):13. [Epub 2012 Dec 26]: 13. • PubMed Central. Google Scholar. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Boku G, Abeya S, Ayers N, Abera M. Leadership commitment and the quality of adolescent-friendly sexual reproductive health services in public health facilities among pastoral districts of Guji Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Healthcare Leadership. 2024; 16: 53–66. doi: 10.2147/JHL.S441951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Hujo K, Carter M. Transformative change for children and youth in the context of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://cdn.unrisd.org/assets/library/papers/pdf-files/wp-2019-2-hujo-carter%20.pdf; 2019.
  • 105.Markham CM, Lormand D, Gloppen KM, Peskin MF, Flores B, Low B et al. Connectedness as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth. J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(3) Suppl: S23–S41. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.214 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Awuah V, Apiung G, Konlaan B. Utilization of youth friendly health services and associated factors: A community-based analytical cross-sectional study among young people in the tamale. [Cited 08 September 2023]. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1609739/v1/2f0d9237-c305-41d7-b6f3-d471fb7cb5dc.pdf?c=1658835871; 2022. Metropolis.
  • 107.West Robert, Michie Susan. A brief introduction to the COM-B Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of motivation. Qeios. 2020. doi: 10.32388/WW04E6 • Google Scholar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.McDonagh LK, Saunders JM, Cassell J, Curtis T, Bastaki H, Hartney T, et al. Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review. Implementation Science. 2018. Dec;13(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Botella-Guijarro Á, Lloret-Irles D, Segura-Heras JV, Moriano-León JA. Characterization and prediction of gambling behavior in adolescents using the COM-B model. PLOS ONE. 2022;17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Laura Brunelli

28 May 2024

PONE-D-24-08352The Sexual and Reproductive Health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-synthesisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Uka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the reviewers' feedback to improve your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laura Brunelli, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The authors express their gratitude for the support provided during this review. The first author, Victoria Uka, acknowledges the financial support received from the Tertiary Education Trust Fund, Nigeria, for her doctoral research, which allowed the review process. The funding agency had no involvement in the conception, methods, data synthesis, discussion, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Special thanks to Leah Millard of the University of Manchester, United Kingdom for her dedicated screening of a percentage of titles and abstracts, enhancing the rigour of this review. The authors also extend their appreciation to the participants and researchers whose work contributed to the primary studies included in this review. Their invaluable contributions have enriched the synthesis of evidence presented in this manuscript.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents the results of a metasynthesis review Understanding the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa is crucial for informing effective interventions in this critical area. I have included my feedback below for improvement and further modifications.

Title:

• The title effectively communicates the focus of the research, providing clarity on the subject matter. However, it is essential to note that while the authors describe their study as a meta-analysis, no evidence of data pooling or statistical analysis is observed throughout the paper. Instead, the authors synthesize existing evidence, which aligns more closely with a systematic review/ meta-aggregative review rather than a meta-analysis. This distinction should be considered for accuracy and clarity.

Abstract:

• The abstract offers a comprehensive overview of the Review examining the SRH needs and preferences of youths aged 10-24 years in sub-Saharan Africa. The methodology, encompassing database searches and quality appraisal using CASP criteria, is robust and well-documented. Key themes from the synthesis of qualitative research, including information needs, service needs, social needs, and delivery preferences, are effectively summarized.

• However, distinct headings for the background, methods, and results sections facilitate a more straightforward presentation and enhance clarity.

Introduction

• The introduction effectively highlights challenges for SSA youths accessing SRHS and underscores the importance of tailored SRHS based on youth needs.

• It could benefit from a more structured approach to enhance clarity, beginning with a clear statement of the Review's objective and providing a concise background on the topic's significance. This could be followed by systematically discussing barriers to SRHS access and existing recommendations.

• Lastly, a clear transition to the review's focus, exploring the needs and preferences of SSA youths regarding SRHS, would improve coherence. It would also be great if the authors showed us the global data in their research statement.

Method:

• The methods section demonstrates rigorous adherence to PRISMA standards and systematic review protocols, enhancing the study's credibility. Using the PICo framework to structure the review question and search terms ensures clarity and reproducibility. Well-defined eligibility criteria and a robust study selection process contribute to the reliability of the review findings.

• Adopting appropriate quality appraisal tools and a meta-ethnographic approach for data synthesis further strengthens the validity of the study outcomes.

Potential areas that need the Author's attention:

• Search Strategy and Databases: Provide more details on the rationale behind selecting specific search terms and databases. Explain how the search strategy was tailored to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature.

• Study Selection Process: While the inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly outlined, more transparency in the screening process could be beneficial. Describe any disagreements between reviewers and how they were resolved.

• Clarity on Data Extraction: Details on how qualitative data related to SRHS needs were extracted would enhance transparency.

• Quality Appraisal: Explain why the CASP qualitative checklist was chosen for quality assessment and how it aligns with the Review's objectives. Discuss any challenges encountered during the quality appraisal process.

• Data Synthesis: While the meta-ethnographic approach is described in detail, elaborate on how discrepancies between studies were addressed during synthesis. Provide insights into the interpretation of findings and the development of lines of argument.

Result

Strengths:

• Comprehensive Synthesis: The results comprehensively synthesize the included studies, highlighting key themes and sub-themes related to sexual and reproductive health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

• Clear Presentation: The themes and sub-themes are presented, making it easy to understand the Review's findings.

• Diverse Study Characteristics: The included studies represent a diverse range of participants, including males and females, covering various countries in SSA, ensuring a broad perspective on youth SRH needs.

• Thorough Exploration: Each theme is explored in detail, with participant quotes providing insight into their experiences and perspectives.

Areas for Improvement:

• Inclusion of Refuting Perspectives: While no refuting perspectives arose for the first theme (Information needs), discussing any conflicting findings or perspectives across the other themes would be beneficial to provide a more nuanced understanding of the results.

• Can the authors provide further insights into the representativeness of the included studies in terms of geographic distribution and demographic characteristics of participants?

• Can the authors elaborate on any discrepancies or conflicting findings identified during the synthesis and how they were resolved?

• What implications do the identified themes have for developing and implementing sexual and reproductive health interventions targeting youths in sub-Saharan Africa (If any)?

Discussion

• The Review comprehensively explores the sexual and reproductive health service (SRHS) needs and preferences of youths aged 10-24 in sub-Saharan Africa, providing in-depth analysis and critical reflection on key themes such as youth empowerment, aligning SRH services, addressing social determinants of health, and tailoring delivery preferences. The following may need the author's attention.

• Contextual Considerations: Given the diverse socio-cultural contexts within SSA, it would be beneficial to discuss how factors such as religion, gender norms, and socioeconomic status may influence youth SRHS needs and preferences. Including a nuanced discussion of these contextual factors would enrich the analysis and provide deeper insights into the topic's complexities.

Reviewer #2: I would encourage Authors to evaluate the content of grey literature they excluded for insights other than those from reviewing 20 papers. Please properly cite [35]. Also consider dropping the pie graph and use a table instead (you’ll find rationale for this in the attached comments). Avoid redundant information.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Elena Mazzolini

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: mynotes_PONE_20240524.docx

pone.0300829.s009.docx (19.6KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 31;19(12):e0300829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300829.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jun 2024

Comment on lines 61-67: We have clarified the global statistics and their specific impact on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Specifically, we have:

1.Clarified that the 374 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur globally, with a significant proportion in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and emphasised the considerable share borne by youth in SSA.

2. Highlighted that approximately 50% of the 21 million pregnancies among 15-19-year-olds in LMICs occur in SSA, thus providing a clearer understanding of the problem’s magnitude in the study area.

3. Enhanced the overall narrative to better reflect the specific challenges faced in SSA, addressing gender inequality and its impact on sexual and reproductive health.

124: We have revised our manuscript to provide a more detailed justification for the exclusion of grey literature. We acknowledge the potential for publication bias as highlighted by Paez (2017) [35], but we chose to exclude grey literature due to difficulties in comprehensively identifying and accessing these sources. Additionally, the heterogeneous nature and potential lack of rigorous peer review of grey literature pose challenges in assessing the validity and replicability of findings. We ensured the quality and reliability of our sources by focusing on published, peer-reviewed studies and thoroughly searching commercial and open-access databases to ensure a comprehensive collection of relevant studies on the sexual and reproductive health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa. We recognise that excluding grey literature might introduce some bias, but we believe this approach was necessary to maintain the integrity of our meta-synthesis. In future research, we may consider evaluating the content of excluded grey literature for additional insights.

We appreciate the reviewer's comment and would like to clarify the purpose and application of the scoring system. The scoring system was used to enhance the transparency and consistency of our quality assessments. Specifically, assigning scores to questions 1-9 of the CASP checklist facilitated inter-study comparisons and supported our overall quality judgments. For Q10, which is open-ended, we differentiated between valuable and less valuable papers by assigning scores of 2 and 1, respectively. This scoring was based on our qualitative judgment of the paper's value (please refer to the S4 file for revised summary appraisal). The scores helped standardise the evaluation process, ensure consistency, and provide a clear and replicable framework for assessing study quality. Importantly, no studies were excluded based on their scores; all papers were included for their valuable contributions to the meta-ethnographic synthesis. We have revised the quality appraisal section to reflect this explanation.

213-214: Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our approach. Our decision to exclude grey literature was primarily driven by several considerations:

1. Comprehensive identification and access: Grey literature can be challenging to comprehensively identify and access. Unlike peer-reviewed studies, grey literature is often dispersed across various platforms and lacks standardised indexing, making it difficult to ensure a thorough and systematic search.

2. Quality and rigorous peer review: One of our main aims was to ensure the scientific quality and reliability of our sources. Published, peer-reviewed studies undergo rigorous review processes that help ensure the validity and replicability of findings. In contrast, grey literature often does not undergo such stringent peer review, posing challenges in assessing its scientific quality.

3. Heterogeneous nature: Grey literature is highly heterogeneous, varying widely in terms of format, quality, and scope. This heterogeneity complicates the assessment and synthesis of findings, which could affect the overall integrity of our meta-synthesis.

Regarding the CASP appraisal, while we did not exclude studies solely based on their CASP checklist scores, we did use these scores to inform our understanding of each study's methodological rigor. The inclusion of studies, regardless of their quality scores, was aimed at capturing a wide range of relevant concepts. However, we prioritised published, peer-reviewed studies to maintain a high standard of quality in our review. We acknowledge that excluding grey literature might introduce some bias. In future research, we may consider evaluating the content of excluded grey literature to pick up additional insights that could complement our findings. This approach was necessary to maintain the integrity and reliability of our meta-synthesis. We have documented this rationale in an earlier comment from the reviewers and have ensured a comprehensive collection of relevant studies by thoroughly searching commercial and open-access databases focusing on the sexual and reproductive health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa.

234:Thank you for your insightful comment. We understand that the pie chart may misleadingly suggest an equal distribution among the themes. To address this, we have replaced the pie chart with a table that more accurately represents the main themes and their sub-themes. This format ensures clarity and avoids any misinterpretation. Please find the revised visualisation in Table 1.

372-373: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. The statement has been revised to reflect the nature of the reviewed papers. The revised sentence now reads: "Our review suggests that guided education may be associated with the development of healthy sexuality perspectives and potentially protective against risky sexual and reproductive behaviours among youths''.

451:We are grateful for the reviewer's valuable feedback. We have revised the section to acknowledge the limitation of not citing grey literature data, which could provide valuable insights into government and institutional responses to significant public health challenges such as drug abuse, violence, and HIV. Thank you for highlighting this important aspect for consideration.

In response to the editor’s comments:

Ethics Statement:

We have added a complete ethics statement in the methods section, indicating that no ethical approval was required for this systematic review as it only involved the analysis of published literature. The statement reads: "As this study is a systematic review of published literature, it did not involve human or animal subjects, and therefore, did not require ethical approval. No primary data collection was conducted, and all data used were from publicly available sources."

Funding Information:

We have moved the funding-related information from the Acknowledgments The updated Funding Statement should now read: "The first author, Victoria Uka, acknowledges the financial support received from the Tertiary Education Trust Fund, Nigeria, for her doctoral research, which facilitated the review process. The funding agency had no involvement in the conception, methods, data synthesis, discussion, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The author(s) received no other specific funding for this work."

Acknowledgments Section:

The Acknowledgments section has been revised to remove any funding-related text and now appropriately acknowledges contributions without referencing funding sources.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300829.s010.docx (22.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Laura Brunelli

25 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-08352R1The Sexual and Reproductive Health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-synthesisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Uka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: **********Thank you for all the work done on your manuscript. Some more aspects still need revision, please follow the reviewer’s suggestions and feedback to further improve your work.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laura Brunelli, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for all the work done on your manuscript. Some more aspects still nedd revision, please follow the reviewer’s suggestions and feedback to further improve your work.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Overall: The authors conducted a systematic review sexual and reproductive health service needs among young people aged 10-24 years in sub-Saharan Africa. Findings and discussion are relatively general and, overall, the manuscript would benefit from the follow modifications.

Abstract:

Line 31: First use of CASP should be spelled out

Introduction:

Line 56: consider modifying language – perhaps change “including” to “by” or “due to”

Line 56-57: Suggest modifying or omitting sentence starting “As a result”

Line 59: not necessary to define the acronym SRHS again

Line 74: Purpose of citation [22] is unclear

Methods:

Line 117: Consider replacing “homeless” with “houseless”

Line 129-136:Please resolve redundancy involving “grey literature” – important to be concise

Line 142: Suggest modifying as other sources of information “may lack” or may not have an transparent peer review process

Line 152-153: What was the Kappa level used to confirm agreement/reliability?

Line 186: Best to be consistent with SRHS or SRH, if possible

Line 209: independent researchers or by researchers, independently?

Line 218: It is very odd that a peer-reviewed article was not accessible – it is possible to elaborate further? It also seems inconsistent with the methods where inclusion was considered by title and abstract and full text

Line 230-232: this is redundant – specified in methods

Discussion:

Overall, this section would benefit from additional specific recommendations and findings, where possible.

Conclusion:

Line 489: First sentence is not really a conclusion

Line 500-502: There is quite a lot of literature in this space – are you able to be more specific about the gap and/or the indicated “need” for additional research?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jake M. Pry

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Dec 31;19(12):e0300829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300829.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Aug 2024

Response to Comments

Abstract:

1. Comment: Line 31: First use of CASP should be spelled out

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have spelled out CASP as ‘’Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)’’ on its first use in the abstract.

Introduction:

2. Comment: Line 56: consider modifying language – perhaps change ‘’including’’ to ‘’by’’ or ‘’due to’’

Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have changed ‘’including’’ to ‘’due to’’ to improve clarity.

3. Comment: Line 56-57: Suggest modifying or omitting sentence starting ‘’As a result’’

Response: We have modified this sentence to provide more specific information and improve the flow. The new sentence reads: ‘’These barriers contribute to significant disparities in youth SRHS access and utilisation across SSA countries.’’ This revision maintains the concept of inconsistency while adding more depth to our discussion of the challenges in SRHS access.

4. Comment: Line 59: not necessary to define the acronym SRHS again.

Response: We agree and have removed the redefinition of SRHS at this point in the manuscript.

5. Comment: Line 74: Purpose of citation [22] is unclear.

Response: We have reviewed the context of citation [22] and have modified the sentence to clarify its purpose. The revised sentence now reads: ‘’Healthy development is hindered [22] and potentially leads to substance misuse or mental health issues [23]’’. Citation [22] (Hegde, Chandran and Pattnaik, 2022) discusses adolescent development and sexuality from a developmental perspective. It emphasises that adolescence is a critical period for healthy development, including sexual development. The article supports our point that when sexual and reproductive health needs are not met, it can hinder overall healthy development in adolescents. So, to improve clarity, we have ensured that the connection between unmet sexual and reproductive health needs and hindered development is more explicitly stated in the surrounding text. This helps to better contextualise the purpose of citation [22] within our argument. This modification provides a clearer link between the citation and our argument about the importance of addressing adolescents' sexual and reproductive health needs for their overall development.

Methods:

6. Comment: Line 117: Consider replacing ‘’homeless’’ with ‘’houseless’’

Response: We appreciate your suggestion to replace 'homeless' with 'houseless'. However, we have decided to retain the term 'homeless' in our exclusion criteria for several reasons:

• It accurately reflects the terminology used in our original systematic review methodology.

• Changing the term retrospectively could potentially alter the perceived scope of our study.

• To maintain consistency with the broader literature in this field, which predominantly uses the term 'homeless' when discussing excluded populations in similar contexts.

While we acknowledge the evolving nature of terminology in this area, we believe that maintaining our original wording is crucial for the accuracy and reproducibility of our review. Thank you for bringing this important point to our attention.

7. Comment: Line 129-136: Please resolve redundancy involving ‘’grey literature’’- important to be concise.

Response: We had previously expanded this section based on feedback from another reviewer who questioned our exclusion of grey literature. However, we appreciate your emphasis on conciseness, and we have revised this section to provide a clear but more succinct explanation of our approach. We believe this revision maintains the necessary justification while improving the overall readability of our methods section.

8. Comment: Line 142: Suggest modifying as other sources of information ‘’may lack’’ or may not have a transparent peer review process.

Response: We have modified this sentence to read ‘’may lack a transparent peer review process’’ to more accurately reflect the variability in review processes.

9. Comment: Line 152-153: What was the Kappa level used to confirm agreement/reliability?

Response: We have clarified that while we described the process of using Cohen's kappa in the methods section, the specific Kappa values are reported in our results section. We have added a brief mention in the methods that specific Kappa values will be reported in the results.

10. Comment: Line 186: Best to be consistent with SRHS or SRH, if possible.

Response: We have reviewed the manuscript and standardised our use of ‘SRHS’ (Sexual and Reproductive Health Services) when referring to services, retaining ‘SRH’ only when discussing the broader concept of Sexual and Reproductive Health. This distinction allows us to be precise in our language while maintaining consistency. However, we have reviewed the manuscript to ensure consistent use of SRHS where applicable.

11. Comment: Line 209: independent researchers or by researchers, independently?

Response: We have clarified the phrasing about the inter-rater reliability check. The statement now reads: ‘’Prior to finalising the selection process, 10% check of titles and abstracts was conducted on the retrieved articles by two researchers independently (VU and LM) to compute an inter-rater reliability.’’

To address the redundancy you noted (Comment 13: Line 230-232), we have moved this statement to the methods section, replacing a similar but less comprehensive statement that was previously there. This consolidation helps to streamline our methodology description while ensuring all necessary information is retained. These revisions aim to improve clarity and conciseness in our reporting of the review process. We believe these changes address your concerns about both the phrasing and the structure of our methodology description.

12. Comment: Line 218: It is very odd that a peer-reviewed article was not accessible – Is it possible to elaborate further? It also seems inconsistent with the methods where inclusion was considered by title and abstract and full text.

Response: We have elaborated on our attempts to access this specific article and the barriers we encountered. Response: The article in question is: ‘’Reproductive health needs of young persons in markets and motor parks in Southwest Nigeria’’ (https://europepmc.org/article/med/14510129). While we were able to access and screen the abstract of this article during our initial review process, we encountered significant barriers in obtaining the full text:

• The article passed our initial screening based on its title and abstract, which aligned with our inclusion criteria.

• However, when we attempted to access the full text, we found it was not available through open access platforms or our institutional subscriptions.

• The article lacked any contact information for the authors, including email addresses, which prevented us from reaching out directly to request the full text.

• We explored all available avenues to access the full text through our institutional resources, but were unsuccessful in obtaining it.

Given our inability to access the full text despite these efforts, we had to exclude this article. We have rephrased the relevant section concisely to reflect this explanation. We believe this explanation addresses the apparent inconsistency you noted and provides a clearer picture of our comprehensive screening and selection process while maintaining transparency in our methodology.

13. Comment: Line 230-232: this is redundant - specified in methods.

Response: We have removed this redundant statement from the results section as it is already covered in the methods.

Discussion:

14. Comment: Overall, this section would benefit from additional specific recommendations and findings, where possible.

Response: We have addressed this by making the following changes:

• We have restructured the discussion to highlight key findings more explicitly where possible. For the first three subheadings of the discussion (Youth empowerment through targeted information, aligning SRH services to diverse youth needs, and addressing social needs for holistic SRHS), we now begin each section with a clear statement of a main finding. For example: ‘’A key finding of this review is that youths strongly desire age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health information, but often lack access to reliable sources.’’ ‘’Our findings reveal a significant mismatch between available SRH services and the diverse needs of youth in SSA.’’ ‘’Our review highlights the interconnectedness of social factors and SRH outcomes among youth in SSA’’

• We have included more specific examples from the included studies to illustrate our points. For instance, we now mention that ‘’in one study [75], youths reported seeking information from older siblings or friends, often receiving inaccurate or incomplete information,’’ and ‘’in one study [67], youths reported using makeshift condoms from bread bags due to lack of access to proper contraceptives.’’

• We have added a new ‘’Implications and recommendations for practice’’ section, which provides six specific, actionable recommendations based directly on our review findings. We believe these changes provide the additional specific findings and recommendations you suggested, enhancing the practical implications of our review.

Conclusion:

15. Comment: Line 489: First sentence is not really a conclusion

Response: We have revised the opening to more clearly state the main finding of our review. We believe this revision provides a stronger, more conclusive opening that directly states the primary outcome of our study.

16. Comment: Line 500-502: There is quite a lot of literature in this space – are you able to be more specific about the gap and/or the indicated "need" for additional research?

Response: We have revised the conclusion to provide more specific research directions based on the gaps identified in our review. We now specify three key areas for future research: (1) Developing and evaluating youth-centred SRHS delivery models, (2) Assessing the effectiveness of integrated services, and (3) Conducting implementation studies on scaling up promising interventions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300829.s011.docx (25.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Laura Brunelli

5 Nov 2024

The Sexual and Reproductive Health needs and preferences of youths in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-synthesis

PONE-D-24-08352R2

Dear Dr. Uka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Laura Brunelli, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: I think the authors have adequately addressed my comments raised in a previous round of review and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.To make the manuscript more technically sound, the authors should adhere and incorporate the journal guidelines in their manuscript to make it complete.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Elena Mazzolini

Reviewer #4: Yes: Alexander Laar

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. List of countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s001.pdf (79.1KB, pdf)
    S2 File. File Search histories.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s002.pdf (121.7KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Data extraction summary on youth’s needs and preferences regarding SRHS in sub-Saharan Africa.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s003.pdf (233.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. CASP appraisal of included papers on the needs and preferences of youths regarding sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s004.pdf (296.9KB, pdf)
    S3 Table. List of included and excluded studies.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s005.pdf (167KB, pdf)
    S4 Table. Full data extraction table based on the data extraction tool used.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s006.pdf (452.3KB, pdf)
    S1 Fig. PICo framework for review question and search terms.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s007.pdf (124.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. PRISMA flow diagram showing stages of study selection.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300829.s008.pdf (255.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: mynotes_PONE_20240524.docx

    pone.0300829.s009.docx (19.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300829.s010.docx (22.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300829.s011.docx (25.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES