The Humanitarian Health Evidence Review

Disease-specific gaps

• Specific evidence gaps exist around many communicable diseases such as pertussis, hepatitis A and E, or measles.
• Further review of the literature has highlighted that there is a particular need for research on interventions against
NTDs (especially those with elimination targets for 2020) and polio in these settings.
• Malaria has been extensively studied in these settings, but due to the fact that existing research is largely
polarised this sector could focus on gathering more evidence for a given context on those areas in which there is
currently little evidence for a particular setting/population (e.g. more vector control studies from Southeast Asia)
36

Indicators, standards, and guidelines

• The CD sector has felt a lack of uniform agreement in the area of using protocols to direct interventions, and
indicators to measure their impact; research should be conducted on how to best standardise both of these for
the CD community in crisis settings.
• The evidence base for CD interventions in crisis settings needs to be strengthened, starting with development of
protocols and indicators on which everyone has consensus, e.g. Sphere indicators must be reframed into
something context-specific.
• Better standard measurements are needed for mortality (e.g. age and gender specific) data.
Study design
• Research could help validate syndromic diagnoses versus laboratory confirmed outcomes for the majority of CD
interventions (e.g., diarrhoeal and non-malarial vector borne diseases).
• New measurement methods should be considered, e.g. for assessing immunization coverage.
• More anthropological/sociological research is needed for CD intervention success (e.g. acceptability, accessibility).
Contextual factors
•Increasing urbanisation and movement to coastal areas means that more attention should be given to CD research
in humanitarian contexts in these settings, including disease movement to and from these population areas.