We are Elrha, a force for change in the humanitarian community. The research and innovation we support equips the humanitarian community with the knowledge of what works, so people affected by crises get the right help when they need it most.
Our purpose is clear: to empower the humanitarian community to improve humanitarian response. We make this happen by supporting and championing the outcomes of robust research and proven innovations.
We empower the humanitarian community. Find out how we can support you...

5 Results for Contextual Factors

5.2 Accountability to end-users

5.2.1 Accountability to end-users

  • The search strategy on this contextual factor captured a large number of related peer-reviewed articles (3876), the vast majority of which (3846) either did not discuss humanitarian crises or did not consider the impact of accountability to end-users on a public health intervention during crisis.
  • There is little available evidence assessing the impact of accountability to end-users on the effectiveness of health interventions during humanitarian crises (30 papers).
  • There is increasing interest in the characterisation of the impact of accountability to end-users on healthcare interventions during humanitarian crises, with 26/30 (87%) of all studies conducted since 1980 being published in the last decade.
  • The majority of available evidence is of low to moderate quality: 12/30 (40%) of papers were from category C evidence; 7/30 (23%) were from category B; and 11/30 (37%) were from category A.
  • All studies were observational. Half of the studies were descriptive in design and none of these were comparative. The other half of the studies were cross-sectional; of these, 6/15 (40%) compared changes over a period of time during a humanitarian crisis.
  • Of the location-identified research on accountability to end-users during humanitarian crises, the most commonly studied region was Asia (10/30, 33%) with Afghanistan and Pakistan being most studied here (three papers each), followed by Africa (6/30, 20%). A further 12/30 (40%) papers considered multiple (more than two) different countries across regions.
  • Evidence for the different types of humanitarian crises focused primarily on armed conflict: 13/30 (43%) considered these; 10/30 (33%) considered both armed conflict and natural disasters; and 7/30 (23%) considered only natural disasters, in particular floods (3) and tsunamis (2).
  • Most papers (20/30, 66%) focused on the general population, 6/30 (20%) considered IDPs only, 3/30 (10%) papers considered refugee populations only, and one paper compared IDPs and refugees.
  • Most papers (17/30, 57%) considered both urban and rural settings, 12/30 (40%) considered only the rural setting, and one paper considered only the urban environment.
  • Of all the available evidence, only 2/30 (7%) studies considered all three aspects of healthcare accountability to end-users, namely its acceptability, availability and quality. 15/30 (50%) of studies considered acceptability; of these four considered one other aspect in addition. 12/30 (40%) of articles considered quality of healthcare; of these six considered one other aspect in addition. 9/30 (30%) of studies considered availability; of these, six considered one other aspect in addition.
  • Regarding the types of public health interventions, 21/30 (70%) articles studied accountability of international medical assistance agencies; of these, 7/30 (23%) considered how they interacted with local existing health services, and 3/30 (10%) others concerned the organisation Médecins San Frontières (MSF) specifically. 6/30 (20%) further articles considered accountability to end-users of existing health services only.
  • Basic, general and primary healthcare services together formed the public healthcare area most studied regarding accountability to end-users (19/30, 63%). 5/30 (17%) papers considered the health topic of communicable diseases, including TB (2 papers), malaria (1), HIV/AIDS (1), and cholera (1). 3/30 (10%) papers considered obstetric services.
  • Concerning the stage of crisis, 4/30 (13%) studies focused on the acute phase, 4/30 (13%) on early recovery, and the vast majority (22/30, 73%) on chronic situations.

 

View Publication View Executive Summary View Executive Summary - French

Subscribe to our newsletters....

Subscribe
 
Elrha © 2018 - 2019 Elrha is a registered charity in England and Wales (1177110).
Elrha Please upgrade your browser

You are seeing this because you are using a browser that is not supported. The Elrha website is built using modern technology and standards. We recommend upgrading your browser with one of the following to properly view our website:

Windows Mac

Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of browsers. We also do not intend to recommend a particular manufacturer's browser over another's; only to suggest upgrading to a browser version that is compliant with current standards to give you the best and most secure browsing experience.