Suchergebnisse

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Abstract
Background
Armed conflict between the militant Islamist group Boko Haram, other insurgents, and the Nigerian military has principally affected three states of northeastern Nigeria (Borno, Adamawa, Yobe) since 2002. An intensification of the conflict in 2009 brought the situation to increased international visibility. However, full-scale humanitarian intervention did not occur until 2016. Even prior to this period of armed conflict, reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health indicators were extremely low in the region. The presence of local and international humanitarian actors, in the form of United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations, working in concert with concerned federal, state, and local entities of the Government of Nigeria, were able to prioritize and devise strategies for the delivery of health services that resulted in marked improvement of health status in the subset of the population in which this could be measured. Prospects for the future remain uncertain.

Methods
Interviews were conducted with more than 60 respondents from government, United Nations agencies, and national and international non-governmental organizations. Quantitative data on intervention coverage indicators from publicly available national surveys (Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS)), National Nutrition and Health Surveys (NNHS)) were descriptively analyzed.

Results
Overall, indicators of low reproductive, maternal, neonatal, and child health (RMNCH) status and intervention coverage were found in the pre-intervention period (prior to 2016) and important improvements were noted following the arrival of international humanitarian assistance, even while armed conflict and adverse conditions persisted. Security issues, workforce limitations, and inadequate financing were frequently cited obstacles.

Conclusion
It is assumed that armed conflict would have a negative impact on the health status of the affected population, but pre-conflict indicators can be so depressed that this effect is difficult to measure. When this is the case, health sector intervention by the international community can often result in marked improvements in the accessible population. What might happen upon the departure of the humanitarian organizations cannot be predicted with an appreciable degree of certainty.

AbstractCOVID-19 prevention strategies in resource limited settings, modelled on the earlier response in high income countries, have thus far focused on draconian containment strategies, which impose movement restrictions on a wide scale. These restrictions are unlikely to prevent cases from surging well beyond existing hospitalisation capacity; not withstanding their likely severe social and economic costs in the long term.We suggest that in low-income countries, time limited movement restrictions should be considered primarily as an opportunity to develop sustainable and resource appropriate mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies, if focused on reducing COVID-19 transmission through a triad of prevention activities, have the potential to mitigate bed demand and mortality by a considerable extent. This triade is based on a combination of high-uptake of community led shielding of high-risk individuals, self-isolation of mild to moderately symptomatic cases, and moderate physical distancing in the community.We outline a set of principles for communities to consider how to support the protection of the most vulnerable, by shielding them from infection within and outside their homes. We further suggest three potential shielding options, with their likely applicability to different settings, for communities to consider and that would enable them to provide access to transmission-shielded arrangements for the highest risk community members. Importantly, any shielding strategy would need to be predicated on sound, locally informed behavioural science and monitored for effectiveness and evaluating its potential under realistic modelling assumptions. Perhaps, most importantly, it is essential that these strategies not be perceived as oppressive measures and be community led in their design and implementation. This is in order that they can be sustained for an extended period of time, until COVID-19 can be controlled or vaccine and treatment options become available.

AbstractGlobally, the number of people affected by conflict is the highest in history, and continues to steadily increase. There is currently a pressing need to better understand how to deliver critical health interventions to women and children affected by conflict. The compendium of articles presented in this Conflict and Health Collection brings together a range of case studies recently undertaken by the BRANCH Consortium (Bridging Research & Action in Conflict Settings for the Health of Women and Children). These case studies describe how humanitarian actors navigate and negotiate the multiple obstacles and forces that challenge the delivery of health and nutrition interventions for women, children and adolescents in conflict-affected settings, and to ultimately provide some insight into how service delivery can be improved.

Armed conflict disproportionately affects the morbidity, mortality, and wellbeing of women, newborns, children, and adolescents. Our study presents insights from a collection of ten country case studies aiming to assess the provision of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition interventions in ten conflict-affected settings in Afghanistan, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. We found that despite large variations in contexts and decision making processes, antenatal care, basic emergency obstetric and newborn care, comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care, immunisation, treatment of common childhood illnesses, infant and young child feeding, and malnutrition treatment and screening were prioritised in these ten conflict settings. Many lifesaving women's and children's health (WCH) services, including the majority of reproductive, newborn, and adolescent health services, are not reported as being delivered in the ten conflict settings, and interventions to address stillbirths are absent. International donors remain the primary drivers of influencing the what, where, and how of implementing WCH interventions. Interpretation of WCH outcomes in conflict settings are particularly context-dependent given the myriad of complex factors that constitute conflict and their interactions. Moreover, the comprehensiveness and quality of data remain limited in conflict settings. The dynamic nature of modern conflict and the expanding role of non-state armed groups in large geographic areas pose new challenges to delivering WCH services. However, the humanitarian system is creative and pluralistic and has developed some novel solutions to bring lifesaving WCH services closer to populations using new modes of delivery. These solutions, when rigorously evaluated, can represent concrete response to current implementation challenges to modern armed conflicts.