Butler, Nadia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7907-785X
Johnson, Ginger
Chiweza, Asiyati
Aung, Kyaw Myint
Quinley, John
Rogers, Katherine
Bedford, Juliet
Funding for this research was provided by:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (No award number)
Article History
Received: 14 August 2019
Accepted: 3 June 2020
First Online: 22 June 2020
Ethics approval and consent to participate
: The research conducted to inform this paper entailed documentation of secondary data collected by CSOs that were partners to the UNICEF project. With the exception of AC, who conducted the political economy analysis, the authors did not collect or in any way participate in collection, handling, storage or analysis of the data. The authors did not have access to the raw data, only an analysis of this data done by those who collected it. Informational interviews carried out by Anthrologica were done as part of an internal programme review, thus falling outside of the need for a formal ethics review by a National Commission for Science and Technology authorised research and ethics review committee. Observational data obtained (e.g. documentation of <i>bwalo</i> forums, community theatre, radio programmes) was publicly available information presented in public forums, often with journalists present who reported this information to the media, thus not confidential and obviating the need for ethical clearance or the seeking of informed consent of participants.For the political economy analysis, ethics approval was not necessary as this was part of a situational analysis for the UNICEF programme. Initial consultations were done with the Ministry of Health and Reproductive Health Unit of the Ministry of Health. For all the health centres, the entry point was the officer in-charge and for the district hospitals the entry point was the Director of Health. At each of the facilities, permission was sought to engage with the relevant staff. As part of normal research ethics procedures, verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants were provided with information about the research and its purposes and were informed that their participation was voluntary. Participants then confirmed their informed consent by answering positively.
: Not applicable.
: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.