Explore the vast range of titles available.

Reducing excess population mortality caused by crises due to armed conflict and natural disasters is an existential aim of humanitarian assistance, but the extent to which these deaths are averted in different humanitarian responses is mostly unknown. This information gap arguably weakens governance and accountability. This paper considers methodological challenges involved in making inferences about humanitarian assistance’s effect on excess mortality, and outlines proposed approaches. Three possible measurement questions, each of which contributes some inferential evidence, are presented: (1) whether mortality has remained within an acceptable range during the crisis (for which different direct estimation options are presented); (2) whether the humanitarian response is sufficiently appropriate and performant to avert excess mortality (a type of contribution analysis requiring in-depth audits of the design of humanitarian services and of their actual availability, coverage and quality); and (3) the actual extent to which humanitarian assistance has reduced excess deaths (potentially the most complex question to answer, requiring application of causal thinking and careful specification of the exposure, and for which either quasi-experimental statistical modelling approaches or a combination of verbal and social autopsy methods are proposed). The paper concludes by considering possible ‘packages’ of the above methods that could be implemented at different stages of a humanitarian response, and calls for investment in improved methods and actual measurement.

Valid and timely information about various domains of public health underpins the effectiveness of humanitarian public health interventions in crises. However, obstacles including insecurity, insufficient resources and skills for data collection and analysis, and absence of validated methods combine to hamper the quantity and quality of public health information available to humanitarian responders. This paper, the second in a Series of four papers, reviews available methods to collect public health data pertaining to different domains of health and health services in crisis settings, including population size and composition, exposure to armed attacks, sexual and gender-based violence, food security and feeding practices, nutritional status, physical and mental health outcomes, public health service availability, coverage and effectiveness, and mortality. The paper also quantifies the availability of a minimal essential set of information in large armed conflict and natural disaster crises since 2010: we show that information was available and timely only in a small minority of cases. On the basis of this observation, we propose an agenda for methodological research and steps required to improve on the current use of available methods. This proposition includes setting up a dedicated interagency service for public health information and epidemiology in crises.

Background Armed conflicts are known to have detrimental impact on availability and accessibility of health services. However, little is known on potential impact on utilisation of these services and health seeking behaviour. This study examines whether exposure to different types of war incidents affected utilisation of key health services—outpatient consultations, antenatal care, deliveries, and C-sections, in conflict affected areas of north west Syria between 1 October 2014 and 30 June 2017. Methods The study is an observational study using routinely collected data of 597,675 medical consultations and a database on conflict incidents that has 11,396 events. Longitudinal panel data analysis was used with fixed effect negative binomial regression for the monthly analysis and distributed lag model with a lag period of 30 days for the daily analysis. Results The study found strong evidence for a negative association between bombardments and both consultations and antenatal care visits. The monthly Risk Ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94–0.97) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.98); and the cumulative daily RR at 30 days was 0.19 (95% CI 0.15–0.25) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.25–0.69) for consultations and antenatal care respectively. Explosions were found to be positively associated with deliveries and C-sections. Each one unit increase in explosions in a given month in a given village was associated with about 20% increase in deliveries and C-sections; RR was 1.22 (95% CI 1.05–1.42) and 1.96 (95% CI 1.03–3.74) respectively. Conclusion The study found that access to healthcare in affected areas in Syria during the study period has been limited. The study provides evidence that conflict incidents were associated negatively with the utilisation of routine health services, such as outpatient consultations and antenatal care. Whereas conflict incidents were found to be positively associated with emergency type maternity services—deliveries, and C-sections.

Crises caused by armed conflict, forced population displacement, or natural disasters result in high rates of excess morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. Many of these crises occur in areas with a substantial tuberculosis burden. We did a systematic review to summarise what is known about the burden of tuberculosis in crisis settings. We also analysed surveillance data from camps included in UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) surveillance, and investigated the association between conflict intensity and tuberculosis notification rates at the national level with WHO data. We identified 51 reports of tuberculosis burden in populations experiencing displacement, armed conflict, or natural disaster. Notification rates and prevalence were mostly elevated; where incidence or prevalence ratios could be compared with reference populations, these ratios were 2 or higher for 11 of 15 reports. Case-fatality ratios were mostly below 10% and, with exceptions, drug-resistance levels were comparable to those of reference populations. A pattern of excess risk was noted in UNHCR-managed camp data where the rate of smear testing seemed to be consistent with functional tuberculosis programmes. National-level data suggested that conflict was associated with decreases in the notification rate of tuberculosis. More studies with strict case definitions are needed in crisis settings, especially in the acute phase, in internally displaced populations and in urban settings. Findings suggest the need for early establishment of tuberculosis services, especially in displaced populations from high-burden areas and for continued innovation and prioritisation of tuberculosis control in crisis settings.

[...] a linear progression from the acute to postemergency phase was the frequently used model.3 Recent changes in conflicts have introduced much complexity. [...] country-level indicators might mask inequalities within different regions in a country-Sudan is in the medium HDI category but those people living in Darfur and southern Sudan are assumed to have far lower life expectancies than the country average. [...] the specific conflict setting, rather than the country as a whole, needs to be taken into account.

The frequency of asymptomatic infection with Ebola virus is unclear: previous estimates vary and there is no standard test. Asymptomatic infection with Ebola virus could contribute to population immunity, reducing spread. If people with asymptomatic infection are infectious it could explain re-emergences of Ebola virus disease (EVD) without known contact. We validated a new oral fluid anti-glycoprotein IgG capture assay among survivors from Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Centre and controls from communities unaffected by EVD in Sierra Leone. We then assessed the seroprevalence of antibodies to Ebola virus in a cross-sectional study of household contacts of the survivors. All household members were interviewed. Two reactive tests were required for a positive result, with a third test to resolve any discrepancies. The assay had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98·9–100; 339 of 339 controls tested negative) and sensitivity of 95·9% (89·8–98·9; 93 of 97 PCR-confirmed survivors tested positive). Of household contacts not diagnosed with EVD, 47·6% (229 of 481) had high level exposure (direct contact with a corpse, body fluids, or a case with diarrhoea, vomiting, or bleeding). Among the contacts, 12·0% (95% CI 6·1–20·4; 11 of 92) with symptoms at the time other household members had EVD, and 2·6% (1·2–4·7; 10 of 388) with no symptoms tested positive. Among asymptomatic contacts, seropositivity was weakly correlated with exposure level. This new highly specific and sensitive assay showed asymptomatic infection with Ebola virus was uncommon despite high exposure. The low prevalence suggests asymptomatic infection contributes little to herd immunity in Ebola, and even if infectious, would account for few transmissions. Wellcome Trust ERAES Programme, Save the Children.

Background Epidemics of infectious disease occur frequently in low-income and humanitarian settings and pose a serious threat to populations. However, relatively little is known about responses to these epidemics. Robust evaluations can generate evidence on response efforts and inform future improvements. This systematic review aimed to (i) identify epidemics reported in low-income and crisis settings, (ii) determine the frequency with which evaluations of responses to these epidemics were conducted, (iii) describe the main typologies of evaluations undertaken and (iv) identify key gaps and strengths of recent evaluation practice. Methods Reported epidemics were extracted from the following sources: World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News (WHO DON), UNICEF Cholera platform, Reliefweb, PROMED and Global Incidence Map. A systematic review for evaluation reports was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science, WPRIM, Reliefweb, PDQ Evidence and CINAHL Plus databases, complemented by grey literature searches using Google and Google Scholar. Evaluation records were quality-scored and linked to epidemics based on time and place. The time period for the review was 2010–2019. Results A total of 429 epidemics were identified, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. A total of 15,424 potential evaluations records were screened, 699 assessed for eligibility and 132 included for narrative synthesis. Only one tenth of epidemics had a corresponding response evaluation. Overall, there was wide variability in the quality, content as well as in the disease coverage of evaluation reports. Conclusion The current state of evaluations of responses to these epidemics reveals large gaps in coverage and quality and bears important implications for health equity and accountability to affected populations. The limited availability of epidemic response evaluations prevents improvements to future public health response. The diversity of emphasis and methods of available evaluations limits comparison across responses and time. In order to improve future response and save lives, there is a pressing need to develop a standardized and practical approach as well as governance arrangements to ensure the systematic conduct of epidemic response evaluations in low-income and crisis settings.

Cholera remains a frequent cause of outbreaks globally, particularly in areas with inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services. Cholera is spread through faecal-oral routes, and studies demonstrate that ingestion of Vibrio cholerae occurs from consuming contaminated food and water, contact with cholera cases and transmission from contaminated environmental point sources. WASH guidelines recommending interventions for the prevention and control of cholera are numerous and vary considerably in their recommendations. To date, there has been no review of practice guidelines used in cholera prevention and control programmes. We systematically searched international agency websites to identify WASH intervention guidelines used in cholera programmes in endemic and epidemic settings. Recommendations listed in the guidelines were extracted, categorised and analysed. Analysis was based on consistency, concordance and recommendations were classified on the basis of whether the interventions targeted within-household or community-level transmission. Eight international guidelines were included in this review: three by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), one from a non-profit organisation (NPO), three from multilateral organisations and one from a research institution. There were 95 distinct recommendations identified, and concordance among guidelines was poor to fair. All categories of WASH interventions were featured in the guidelines. The majority of recommendations targeted community-level transmission (45%), 35% targeted within-household transmission and 20% both. Recent evidence suggests that interventions for effective cholera control and response to epidemics should focus on case-centred approaches and within-household transmission. Guidelines did consistently propose interventions targeting transmission within households. However, the majority of recommendations listed in guidelines targeted community-level transmission and tended to be more focused on preventing contamination of the environment by cases or recurrent outbreaks, and the level of service required to interrupt community-level transmission was often not specified. The guidelines in current use were varied and interpretation may be difficult when conflicting recommendations are provided. Future editions of guidelines should reflect on the inclusion of evidence-based approaches, cholera transmission models and resource-efficient strategies.

Background Cholera epidemics continue to challenge disease control, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states. Rapid detection and response to small cholera clusters is key for efficient control before an epidemic propagates. To understand the capacity for early response in fragile states, we investigated delays in outbreak detection, investigation, response, and laboratory confirmation, and we estimated epidemic sizes. We assessed predictors of delays, and annual changes in response time. Methods We compiled a list of cholera outbreaks in fragile and conflict-affected states from 2008 to 2019. We searched for peer-reviewed articles and epidemiological reports. We evaluated delays from the dates of symptom onset of the primary case, and the earliest dates of outbreak detection, investigation, response, and confirmation. Information on how the outbreak was alerted was summarized. A branching process model was used to estimate epidemic size at each delay. Regression models were used to investigate the association between predictors and delays to response. Results Seventy-six outbreaks from 34 countries were included. Median delays spanned 1–2 weeks: from symptom onset of the primary case to presentation at the health facility (5 days, IQR 5–5), detection (5 days, IQR 5–6), investigation (7 days, IQR 5.8–13.3), response (10 days, IQR 7–18), and confirmation (11 days, IQR 7–16). In the model simulation, the median delay to response (10 days) with 3 seed cases led to a median epidemic size of 12 cases (upper range, 47) and 8% of outbreaks ≥ 20 cases (increasing to 32% with a 30-day delay to response). Increased outbreak size at detection (10 seed cases) and a 10-day median delay to response resulted in an epidemic size of 34 cases (upper range 67 cases) and < 1% of outbreaks < 20 cases. We estimated an annual global decrease in delay to response of 5.2% (95% CI 0.5–9.6, p  = 0.03). Outbreaks signaled by immediate alerts were associated with a reduction in delay to response of 39.3% (95% CI 5.7–61.0, p  = 0.03). Conclusions From 2008 to 2019, median delays from symptom onset of the primary case to case presentation and to response were 5 days and 10 days, respectively. Our model simulations suggest that depending on the outbreak size (3 versus 10 seed cases), in 8 to 99% of scenarios, a 10-day delay to response would result in large clusters that would be difficult to contain. Improving the delay to response involves rethinking the integration at local levels of event-based detection, rapid diagnostic testing for cluster validation, and integrated alert, investigation, and response.

Background In a growing number of humanitarian crises, “remote management” is negotiated across borders and implemented by humanitarian agencies through “local actors” to deliver assistance. However, the narrative describing the involvement of local actors in the delivery of humanitarian aid in armed conflict settings remains reductionist and unreflective of the complex and circular course of the “localisation of aid”. This paper explores cross-border humanitarian assistance within the Syrian conflict. We document how humanitarian actors operate to deliver humanitarian health care in North-West Syria (Turkish border), explore their challenges and critique the language used within current debates on the localisation of aid. Methods We undertook key informant interviews with Turkey-based humanitarian aid professionals involved in the humanitarian health response inside Syria. We integrated data previously collected for The Lancet -American University of Beirut Commission on Syria during field work in Gaziantep, Turkey, through meetings, conversations, discussions and expert consultations with Syrian health professionals, WHO-Turkey staff members and members of Syrian health directorates. We also drew from background desk reviews conducted by the Commission on health systems responses and timeline of events in Turkey during the Syrian conflict. Results This paper uncovers creative and effective bottom-up strategies that enhanced cross-border coordination of aid delivery into Syria. Our findings unravel the key role played by Syrian providers in accessing vulnerable populations and in reshaping coordination and funding mechanisms inside Syria, as well as the disproportionate risks local actors bear within the response. Our findings also reveal an iterative negotiation of decision-making dynamics, a “low-profile approach” promoted to gain access to populations of concerns, and an environment that is heavily shaped by close interpersonal relationships and social trust. Conclusions Our multifaceted narrative unpacks circular flows of interactions among actors and uncovers strategies developed by practitioners on the field, which are often left undocumented. We argue that there is an opportunity for the humanitarian sector to learn from these synergies to rethink how medical humanitarianism is framed (hopefully leading to a more collaborative framing that resists mainstreaming “local” actors within a “traditional” system). There is also an opportunity for the humanitarian and global health communities to reflect on how value attributed to human lives needs to be questioned in contexts where national staff face a disproportionate risk to deliver aid.