The Humanitarian Health Evidence Review

GENERAL COMMENTS

SRH

• Research is being used by INGOS and multilateral organizations to inform the design of interventions, yet staff, particularly those involved with programme implementation and design face many barriers including limited access to peer reviewed publications and prohibitively high costs for obtaining articles.
• Not enough is known about how to best provide and scale up services in the transitional phases from acute to chronic and chronic to protracted crises.

GBV

• Research on primary and secondary GBV prevention programming is needed at all phases of a crisis. There is limited research at protracted/early recovery stages and even less at the acute and chronic stages.
• Evidence on health service needs for survivors of violence exist but there is no evidence on the impact in emergencies of other prevention and response interventions (i.e. case management for survivors of violence, psychosocial interventions, or risk reduction through interventions such as cash transfers, or community‐based medical care). All of these interventions are based on evidence from stable settings.

INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES

SRH

• The most commonly cited guidelines in use included Sphere, the MISP, and the IAWG Field Manual. Some organisations developed their own guidance based on their organisational experience, the aforementioned guidelines, and the WHO guidance.

GBV

• Current guidelines for GBV‐related interventions are based on programmatic experience and evidence from developed and stable country settings. Numerous guidelines exist but are not systematically implemented and none have been evaluated.
• Current guidelines for emergency settings are based on programmatic experiences and development contexts, yet their effectiveness (and potential harmfulness) at preventing violence is unknown.
• Some experts expressed concerns about how IASC GBV guidelines are being implemented and whether they are effective.