This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Research calls for the sexual and reproductive rights field to prioritize gender norms to ensure that women can act on their reproductive rights. However, there is a gap in accepted measures. We addressed this by including important theoretical components of gender norms: differentiating between descriptive and injunctive norms and adding a referent group. Our team originally developed and validated the G‐NORM, a gender norms scale, in India. In this paper, we describe how we subsequently adapted and validated it in Nepal. We administered items to women of reproductive age, conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and examined associations between the subscales and reproductive health outcomes. Like the original G‐NORM, our factor analyses showed that descriptive norms and injunctive norms comprise two distinct scales which fit the data well and had Cronbach alphas of 0.92 and 0.89. More equitable descriptive gender norms were associated with higher decision‐making scores, increased odds of intending to use family planning, disagreeing that it is wrong to use family planning, and older ideal age at marriage. Injunctive gender norms were only associated with disagreeing that it is wrong to use family planning. Findings offer an improved measure of gender norms in Nepal and provide evidence that gender norms are critical for agency and reproductive health outcomes.

Much of the methodological literature on rapid qualitative analysis describes processes used by a relatively small number of researchers focusing on one study site and using rapid analysis to replace a traditional analytical approach. In this paper, we describe the experiences of a transnational research consortium integrating both rapid and traditional qualitative analysis approaches to develop social theory while also informing program design. Research was conducted by the Innovations for Choice and Autonomy (ICAN) consortium, which seeks to understand how self-injection of the contraceptive subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) can be implemented in a way that best meets women's needs, as defined by women themselves. Consortium members are based in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Nigeria, and the United States. Data for the ICAN study was collected in all four countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In order to both illuminate social phenomena across study sites and inform the program design component of the study, researchers developed tools meant to gather both in-depth information about women's contraceptive decision-making and data targeted specifically to program design during the formative qualitative phase of the study. Using these two bodies of data, researchers then simultaneously conducted both a traditional qualitative and rapid analysis to meet multiple study objectives. To complete the traditional analysis, researchers coded interview transcripts and kept analytical memos, while also drawing on data collected by tools developed for the rapid analysis. Rapid analysis consisted of simultaneously collecting data and reviewing notes developed specifically for this analysis. We conclude that integrating traditional and rapid qualitative analysis enabled us to meet the needs of a complex transnational study with the added benefit of grounding our program design work in more robust primary data than normally is available for studies using a human-centered design approach to intervention development. However, the realities of conducting a multi-faceted study across multiple countries and contexts made truly “rapid” analysis challenging.

Identifying patients with a low likelihood of paying their bill serves the needs of patients and providers alike: aligning government programs with their target beneficiaries while minimizing patient frustration and reducing waste among emergency physicians by streamlining the billing process. The goal of this study was to predict the likelihood of patients paying the balance of their emergency department visit bill within 90 days of receipt. Three machine learning methodologies were applied to predict payment: logistic regression, decision tree, and random forest. Models were trained and performance was measured using 1,055,941 patients with non-zero balances across 27 EDs from 1 August 2015 to 31 July 2017. The decision tree accurately predicted 87% of unsuccessful payments, providing significant opportunities to identify patients in need of financial assistance.

No abstract