BACKGROUND: Global health and development (GHD) systems that centralize power in the Global North were conceived during colonialism. As a result, they often replicate unequal power structures, maintaining dogged inequities. Growing and historic calls to decolonize GHD advocate for the transfer of power to actors in the Global South. This article identifies examples of colonial legacies in todays GHD projects and offers actionable strategies to decolonize. METHODS: From August 2021 to March 2022, 20 key informants across 15 organizations participated in interviews about their experiences and perspectives relating to the decolonization of GHD. We used deductive thematic coding to identify examples of challenges and strategies to address them across 3 project life cycle phases: conceptualization and contracting, program planning and implementation, and program evaluation and dissemination. RESULTS: Participants described how power is maintained in the Global North, sharing countless examples across the project life cycle, including agenda-setting with minimal local participation or partnership, onerous requirements that limit grantee eligibility, Global North ownership of data collected by and in the Global South, and dissemination in languages and formats that are not easily accessible to Global South audiences. Proposed strategies to decolonize GHD projects include having built-in participatory processes and accountability mechanisms; aligning solicitations with existing local strategies; adapting the process for awarding, contracting, and evaluating investments to increase the representation and competitiveness of Global South entities; creating trusting, respectful relationships with Global South partners; and systematically applying power analyses to each step of the project life cycle. CONCLUSIONS: GHD practitioners suggested project life cycle-based strategies for shifting power and redistributing resources, which we argue will ultimately enhance the value, impact, and sustainability of GHD programming.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an assessment in Malawi, Nepal, Niger, and Uganda to document access-related reasons for not using contraceptive methods during the COVID-19 pandemic that led to unintended pregnancies, describe use of modern contraception among women in potential need of contraception compared to before the pandemic, examine method choice, and describe barriers to contraceptive access and use. METHODS: Between December 2020 and May 2021, we conducted an opt-in phone survey with 21,692 women, followed by an outbound survey with 5,124 women who used modern nonpermanent contraceptive methods or who did not want to get pregnant within 2 years but were not using a modern contraceptive method. The surveys examined current behaviors and documented behaviors before the pandemic retrospectively. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine factors associated with contraceptive use dynamics during COVID-19. RESULTS: Pregnant women surveyed reported that the pandemic had affected their ability to delay or avoid getting pregnant, ranging from 27% in Nepal to 44% in Uganda. The percentage of respondents to the outbound survey using modern contraception decreased during the pandemic in all countries except Niger. Fear of COVID-19 infection was associated with discontinuing modern contraception in Malawi and with not adopting a modern method among nonusers in Niger. Over 79% of surveyed users were using their preferred method. Among nonusers who tried obtaining a method, reasons for nonuse included unavailability of the preferred method or of providers and lack of money; nonusers who wanted a method but did not try to obtain one cited fear of COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of surveyed women attributing unintended pregnancies to the pandemic and examples of constraints to contraceptive access and use on the supply and demand side. The effects of the pandemic must be interpreted within the local contraceptive, health system, and epidemiological context.

Evidence should be the foundation for a well-designed family planning (FP) program, but existing evidence is rarely aligned with and/or synthesized to speak directly to FP programmatic needs. Based on our experience cocreating FP research and learning agendas (FP RLAs) in Côte dIvoire, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, and Uganda, we argue that FP RLAs can drive the production of coordinated research that aligns with national priorities.To cocreate FP RLAs, stakeholders across 6 countries conducted desk reviews of 349 documents and 106 key informant interviews, organized consultation meetings in each country to prioritize evidence gaps and generate research and learning questions, and, ultimately, formed 6 FP RLAs comprising 190 unique questions. We outline the process for consensus-driven development of FP RLAs and communicate the results of an analysis of the questions in each FP RLA across 4 technical areas: self-care, equity, high impact practices, and youth. Each question was categorized as a learning versus research question, the former indicating an opportunity to synthesize existing evidence and the latter to conduct new research to answer the question. Themes emerging from the data shed light on shared evidence gaps across the 6 countries. We argue that similarities and differences in the questions in each FP RLA reflect the unique implementation experience and context, as well as each countrys placement on the FP S-curve. Early uses of the FP RLAs include informing the development of FP costed implementation plans and FP2030 commitments. FP RLAs have also been discussed in multiple thematic working groups. For FP stakeholders, these FP RLAs represent a consensus-based agenda that can guide the generation and synthesis of evidence to answer each countrys most pressing questions, ultimately driving progress toward increasingly evidence-based programming and policy.