Despite progress in reduction in maternal deaths in South Africa, deaths due to complications of hypertension in pregnancy remain high at 26 deaths per 100 000 live births in 2016. The South African health ministry modified its existing four-visit antenatal care model to align with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2016 recommendations for the number and content of antenatal care contacts. Implementation of the eight-contact antenatal care recommendations began in April 2017, after adaptation to the national context and nationwide trainings. In this article, we describe the stages of implementation and the monitoring of key indicators. We share lessons, particularly from the important early stages of nationwide scale-up and an analysis of the early results. We analysed samples of maternity case records in four catchment areas in the first year of the updated care model. The mean number of antenatal care contacts among five monthly samples of 200 women increased steadily from 4.76 (standard deviation, SD: 2.0) in March 2017 to 5.90 (SD: 2.3) in February 2018. The proportion of women with hypertension detected who received appropriate action (provision of medical treatment or referral) also increased from 83.3% (20/24) to 100.0% (35/35) over the same period. South Africa’s experiences with implementation of the updated antenatal care package shows that commitment from all stakeholders is essential for success. Training and readiness are key to identifying and managing women with complications and developing an efficient antenatal care system accessible to all women.

Background Youth ages 15 to 24, who comprise a large portion of sub-Saharan Africa, face a higher burden of unmet contraceptive need than adults. Despite increased international and national commitments to improving young people’s access to contraception, significant barriers impede their access to a full range of methods. To further explore these barriers among youth in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, we conducted a qualitative study to capture the challenges that affect contraceptive method decisionmaking and complicate youth access to the full method mix. Methods To understand factors that impact young people’s contraceptive decisionmaking process across all three countries, we conducted a total of 35 focus group discussions with 171 youth ages 15 to 24 and 130 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders working in youth family planning. Questionnaires aligned with the High Impact Practices in Family Planning’s elements of adolescent-friendly contraceptive services. Data were coded with MAXQDA and analyzed using a framework for contraceptive decisionmaking to identify relevant patterns and themes. Results In all three countries, youth reported that condoms are the most commonly sought contraceptive method because they are easiest to access and because youth have limited knowledge of other methods. Youth from diverse settings shared uncertainty and concern about the safety and side effects of many methods other than condoms, complicating their ability to take full advantage of other available methods. While most youth in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda reported at least moderate confidence in obtaining the information needed to help choose a method, and only a few youth reported that they are completely unable to access contraceptives, other barriers still present a major deterrent for youth, including cost, inconvenient facility hours and long wait times, and stigma from family, community members, and providers. Conclusions Young people’s ability to fully exercise their method choice remains limited despite availability of services, leading them to take the path of least resistance. Program implementers and policymakers should consider the diverse and often interconnected barriers that youth face in attempting to enjoy the benefits of a full spectrum of contraceptive methods and design multi-level interventions to mitigate such barriers.

PURPOSE The Commission on Cancer seeks to promote robust survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs' survivorship programs range from cursory (eg, developing care plans without robust services) to robust (eg, facilitating follow-up care). To inform cancer programs' future efforts, in this study, we identified the implementation strategies that cancer programs used to achieve robust survivorship programs, distinguishing them from cursory programs. METHODS We sampled 39 cancer programs across the United States with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to robust on the basis of LIVESTRONG survivorship care consensus elements. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with a total of 42 health care professionals. We used template analysis to distinguish implementation strategies used in cancer programs with robust survivorship programs from strategies that yielded cursory survivorship programs. RESULTS Cancer programs with robust survivorship programs established clear systems survivorship care and formal committees to improve the survivorship care processes. They sought buy-in from multiple stakeholders to leverage cancer program resources and defined clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. By contrast, cancer programs with cursory survivorship programs reported less consistency in survivorship care processes and lacked buy-in from key stakeholders. They had limited resources, faced persistent structural concerns, and had insufficient clarity in roles among team members. CONCLUSION Accrediting bodies may consider incorporating the implementation strategies that robust survivorship programs have used as guidance for supporting cancer programs in operationalizing survivorship care and evaluating the use of these strategies during the accreditation and review process.

209 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) seeks to promote comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs’ approaches range from cursory (e.g., developing care plans without robust services) to comprehensive (e.g., facilitating follow-up care). This study identified strategies that were unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs. Methods: We sampled 39 CoC-accredited cancer programs with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to comprehensive, as reported in CoC annual surveys. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with a total of 42 healthcare professionals (1-2/program). We identified strategies unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches by comparing them to cancer programs with cursory approaches. Results: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs had formal committees with ample opportunities to evaluate the progress, revise roles, and acquire multiple stakeholders’ support. Keeping a good record system enabled these cancer programs to meet accreditation requirements and improve processes. Buy-in from upper management and key physicians was deemed crucial in leveraging cancer program resources. These programs also had clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. Like cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs, many cancer programs with cursory approaches also had formal committees; however, cancer programs with cursory approaches lacked buy-in from key stakeholders, relying on few staff or a champion for implementation. Cancer programs with cursory approaches had limited resources, cumbersome processes, and team members with unclear roles. Conclusions: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to survivorship program implementation gained broad stakeholder buy-in and established clear team member roles with shared accountability. Study findings will inform more than 1500 CoC-accredited US cancer programs’ approaches to implementing survivorship programs. At the conference, we will have results from quantitative and measures validation companion studies.