Lay health-worker delivered and technology-based interventions for sexual and reproductive health among adolescents and young adults in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Matthias Kern, Christine Neumann, Benjamin Bosompim, Sujata Sujata, Samuel Mayeden, Fabiola V Moshi, Dorit Ann, Joy Mauti, Adi Lukas Kurniawan, Nolwazi Cynthia Dlamini, Sarah Nabukeera, Sphindile Machanyangwa, Dagmawit Tewahido, Sachin Shinde, Till Bärnighausen, Mary Mwanyika-Sando, Emmanuel Anongeba Anaba, Justine Bukenya

Journal: BMJ open 2026;16(9):e121357

PMID: 42744375

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at high risk of harmful sexual and reproductive health (SRH) practices. Preventive and educational interventions by lay health workers or through technological means are a cost-effective and scalable solution. Unfortunately, to date, there is too little synthesised evidence on available lay health-worker delivered or technology-based interventions, their target populations and content, their implementation and effect on different SRH outcomes as well as facilitators and barriers to intervention effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To help fill this knowledge gap and to identify where further research is needed, we conducted a scoping review of technology-based or lay health-worker delivered preventive and educational SRH interventions targeting AYAs in LMICs.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (through PubMed) and Embase for eligible studies published from 1 January 2000 until 19 January 2026.

ELIGIBILITY

Eligible were studies assessing the effect of preventive and educational lay health-worker delivered or technology-based interventions on any SRH outcomes among AYAs (aged 10-24 years) in LMICs published in English in peer-reviewed journals.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction covers study details, methods, intervention strategies, outcomes and findings.

RESULTS

The scoping review includes 101 studies based on 95 research projects evaluating 94 unique interventions. Studies were conducted in 40 different countries and most (n=65) were published since 2020. Included interventions range from single-session interventions lasting less than half an hour in total to multiyear whole-of-community interventions. Most (n=54) employ technological means such as websites or social media pages (n=18), smartphone apps (n=6), text-messaging (n=15), videos (n=11) or mass-media campaigns (n=4) for intervention delivery, while the remaining (n=47) typically centre around regular face-to-face educational sessions and are delivered by peers (n=23), adult community members (n=15) or a combination of both (n=9). Included studies investigate intervention effects on a wide range of SRH outcomes, with those pertaining to SRH knowledge or attitudes getting most attention. Most studies report significant improvements for most assessed outcomes. This is particularly true for SRH knowledge, while results are slightly more mixed when it comes to some SRH behavioural or physiological outcomes. No noticeable differences in intervention effectiveness were observed between lay health-worker delivered and technology-based interventions. Identified facilitators of intervention effectiveness include the role of community outreach, as practised by some of the lay health-worker delivered interventions, in overcoming culturally grounded resistance to SRH education of AYAs. Important gaps in the literature include a scarcity of interventions tailored to male or out-of-school AYAs and a lack of attention to the extent to which improvements in SRH knowledge and attitudes translate to improvements in behavioural and physiological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We identified a diverse variety of lay health-worker delivered and technology-based SRH interventions showing positive effects on many different SRH outcomes among AYAs in LMICs, testifying to the great potential of those approaches. However, more research is needed focusing on so-far understudied groups and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

This scoping review adheres to a protocol previously published in this journal and that is registered on the Open Science Framework website (http://osf.io/vna2z).

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.

Address: Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany [email protected].; Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.; Department of Clinical Nursing, The University of Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania.; Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.; Transdisciplinary Research Area "Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Futures" and Center for Development Research, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.; Gender and Sexuality, University of South Africa - Muckleneuk Campus, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.; School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.; School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.; Nutrition and Behavioral Sciences Department, Addis Continental Institute of Public Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.; Center for Inquiry into Mental Health, Pune, India.; Africa Academy for Public Health, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, United Republic of.; Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.