Annual Trends and Issues Identified in RPRH Implementationa
| Years Identified | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area | Issues | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| Cross-cutting | No overall plan or a single agency solely in charge of nationwide implementation | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ |
| Weak M&E and data management | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |
| Weak link between demand generation and service provision; weak logistics system | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |
| Limited scope and scale of service delivery through public sector | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ||
| Capacity-building efforts of NGAs like DOH are limited to public sector | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ||
| Uncertainty of RPRH budget; limited absorptive capacity for incremental budgets | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Low utilization of RPRH benefits; lack in clarity for reimbursements and guidelines | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |
| MNCHN | Limited access to services and stagnant/high MMR and IMR due to preventable causes | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ |
| Poor newborn, infant, child health and nutrition | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| FP | High unmet need varying across population groups; LGU difficulty operationalizing FP SDN | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |
| Variable training standards and requirements for FP licensing or accreditation; few HHR in facilities for competing priorities | ◉ | |||||
| Legal barriers to providing FP (i.e., TRO) | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Impractical FP targets and planning, including resolution of bottlenecks | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| ASRH | Lack of clear legal authority and evidence-based technical guidelines to direct ASRH programs and strategies | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |
| Unavailability of routinely collected age and sex disaggregated data on health service utilization | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| Delay in adoption of CSE in K-12; limited IEC on ASRH for parents; ineffective awareness campaigns to raise demand for ASRH services | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| High unmet need of adolescents; minors need parental consent to access FP services; lack of youth-friendly treatment centers; stigma | ◉ | |||||
| VAWC | Laws with dated or discriminatory content; gaps in local policies to address VAWC or GBV | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | ||
| Inadequate research and monitoring for GBV- and gender-responsive services | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Lack of comprehensive package of services for survivors (psychosocial, legal, and support) | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Unaddressed cases and slow access to justice | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| Lack of service provider capability (barangay VAW desks, WCPU in hospitals) | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Prevention of VAWC is not a priority | ◉ | |||||
| STI-HIV/AIDS | Continuing growth of HIV epidemic; rising cases among children (vertical transmission) | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| Limited access to HIV/STI services and info | ◉ | ◉ | ◉ | |||
| Lack of data and research on HIV | ◉ | ◉ | ||||
| Lack of laws to protect key populations from discrimination and stigma | ◉ | |||||
Abbreviations: ASRH, adolescent sexual and reproductive health; CSE, comprehensive sexuality education; DOH, Department of Health; FP, family planning; GBV, gender-based violence; HHR, health human resources; IEC, information, education, and communication; IMR, infant mortality rate; LGU, local government unit; M&E, monitoring and evaluation; MMR, maternal mortality rate; NGA, national government agency; RPRH, Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health; SDN, service delivery network; STI, sexually transmitted infection; TRO, temporary restraining order; VAW, violence against women; VAWC, violence against women and children; WCPU, women and child protection unit.
↵aSources: Annual accomplishment reports 2014–2018.