Dataset Information

Participation by conflict-affected and forcibly displaced communities in humanitarian healthcare responses: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Community participation in health responses in humanitarian crises is increasingly promoted by humanitarian actors to support adoption of measures that are relevant and effective to local needs. Our aim was to understand the role of community participation in humanitarian health responses for conflict-affected populations (including forcibly displaced populations) in low- and middle-income countries and the barriers and facilitators to community participation in healthcare responses.

Methods

Using a systematic review methodology, following the PRISMA protocol, we searched four bibliographic databases for publications reporting peer-reviewed primary research. Studies were selected if they reported how conflict-affected populations were involved in healthcare responses in low- and middle-income settings, and associated changes in healthcare responses or health outcomes. We applied descriptive thematic synthesis and assessed study quality using study design-specific appraisal tools.

Results

Of 18,247 records identified through the database searching, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Various types of community participation were observed, with participation mostly involved in implementing interventions rather than framing problems or designing solutions. Most studies on community participation focused on changes in health services (access, utilisation, quality), community acceptability and awareness, and ownership and sustainability. Key barriers and facilitators to community participation included political will at national and local level, ongoing armed conflict, financial and economic factors, socio-cultural dynamics of communities, design of humanitarian responses, health system factors, and health knowledge and beliefs. Included studies were of mixed quality and the overall strength of evidence was weak. More generally there was limited critical engagement with concepts of participation.

Conclusion

This review highlights the need for more research on more meaningful community participation in healthcare responses in conflict-affected communities, particularly in framing problems and creating solutions. More robust research is also required linking community participation with longer-term individual and health system outcomes, and that critically engages in constructs of community participation.

SUBMITTER: Rass E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8352176 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:UnlabelledBackgroundOptimal adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is required to promote viral suppression and to prevent disease progression and mortality. Forcibly displaced and conflict-affected populations may face challenges succeeding on HAART. We performed a systematic review of the literature on adherence to HAART and treatment outcomes in these groups, including refugees and internally-displaced persons (IDPs), assessed the quality of the evidence and suggest a future research program.MethodsMedline, Embase, and Global Health databases for 1995-2011 were searched using the Ovid platform. A backward citation review of subsequent work that had cited the Ovid results was performed using the Web of Science database. ReliefWeb and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) websites were searched for additional grey literature.Results and conclusionWe screened 297 records and identified 17 reports covering 15 quantitative and two qualitative studies from 13 countries. Three-quarters (11/15) of the quantitative studies were retrospective studies based on chart review; five studies included <100 clients. Adherence or treatment outcomes were reported in resettled refugees, conflict-affected persons, internally-displaced persons (IDPs), and combinations of refugees, IDPs and other foreign-born persons. The reviewed reports showed promise for conflict-affected and forcibly-displaced populations; the range of optimal adherence prevalence reported was 87-99.5%. Treatment outcomes, measured using virological, immunological and mortality estimates, were good in relation to non-affected groups. Given the diversity of settings where forcibly-displaced and conflict-affected persons access ART, further studies on adherence and treatment outcomes are needed to support scale-up and provide evidence-based justifications for inclusion of these vulnerable groups in national treatment plans. Future studies and program evaluations should focus on systematic monitoring of adherence and treatment interruptions by using facility-based pharmacy records, understanding threats to optimal adherence and timely linkage to care throughout the displacement cycle, and testing interventions designed to support adherence and treatment outcomes in these settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid development of preparedness and response plans to quell transmission and prevent illness across the world. Increasingly, there is an appreciation of the need to consider equity issues in the development and implementation of these plans, not least with respect to gender, given the demonstrated differences in the impacts both of the disease and of control measures on men, women, and non-binary individuals. Humanitarian crises, and particularly those resulting from conflict or violence, exacerbate pre-existing gender inequality and discrimination. To this end, there is a particularly urgent need to assess the extent to which COVID-19 response plans, as developed for conflict-affected states and forcibly displaced populations, are gender responsive.MethodsUsing a multi-step selection process, we identified and analyzed 30 plans from states affected by conflict and those hosting forcibly displaced refugees and utilized an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Gender Responsive Assessment Scale (WHO-GRAS) to determine whether existing COVID-19 response plans were gender-negative, gender-blind, gender-sensitive, or gender-transformative.ResultsWe find that although few plans were gender-blind and none were gender-negative, no plans were gender-transformative. Most gender-sensitive plans only discuss issues specifically related to women (such as gender-based violence and reproductive health) rather than mainstream gender considerations throughout all sectors of policy planning.ConclusionsDespite overwhelming evidence about the importance of intentionally embedding gender considerations into the COVID-19 planning and response, none of the plans reviewed in this study were classified as 'gender transformative.' We use these results to make specific recommendations for how infectious disease control efforts, for COVID-19 and beyond, can better integrate gender considerations in humanitarian settings, and particularly those affected by violence or conflict.

Project description:BackgroundLarge international humanitarian actors support and directly deliver health services for millions of people in crises annually, and wield considerable power to decide which health services to provide, how and to whom, across a vast spectrum of health areas. Despite decades of reform aiming to improve accountability in the sector, public health practice among humanitarian actors is not heavily scrutinized in either the countries where they are headquartered or those where they provide healthcare. We surveyed current healthcare governance practice among large international humanitarian actors to better understand what organisations are doing to ensure oversight and accountability for health services in humanitarian responses.MethodsThe term 'healthcare governance' was defined and categorised into seven domains: implementation of health management information systems (HMIS) and use of resulting data; professional development of health sector staff; audits of health service performance; management of clinical incidents; evidence-based practice; pharmaceutical supply; and beneficiary engagement. Senior health professionals at 32 leading international actors providing humanitarian health services were contacted between July and August 2019 to complete a 109-question online survey about their organisation's practice in these domains.ResultsRespondents from 13 organisations completed the questionnaire. Healthcare governance practices were undertaken to varying degrees by all organisations but were often driven by donor requirements and external factors rather than improvement of programme performance. Common strengths were the inclusion of governance in organisational policies, high availability of technical guidelines, and close monitoring of pharmaceutical services. Recurring weaknesses were poor beneficiary engagement, inconsistent use of health information for decision making, unsystematic implementation of healthcare audits, inconsistent management of clinical incidents, and lack of training and professional development opportunities.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to describe healthcare governance practice among humanitarian actors. Leading international humanitarian healthcare providers are already implementing many healthcare governance activities; however, these are inconsistently applied and generally not reflective of systematic policies or earmarked organisational resources. There is a need for sector-wide consensus on how the humanitarian sector defines healthcare governance, the domains that constitute it, which actors in the humanitarian system are implicated, and how malpractice should be systematically addressed.