Fires in refugee and displaced persons settlements: The current situation and opportunities to improve fire prevention and control

Epidemiology of burns in a humanitarian setting: A national study among refugees in Lebanon

INTRODUCTION

Burns represent one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide and disproportionately impact women, children, and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Syrian refugees who fled conflict to land in overcrowded informal settlements across Lebanon are a particularly vulnerable population. This study aims to assess the etiology and risk factors for burns in this population.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, cluster-based population study adopted the Surgeons Overseas Assessment of Surgical Need (SOSAS) version 3.0 to capture data from refugees residing in informal settlements in multiple regions across Lebanon. The tool was contextualized and used to collect detailed information on burn cases sustained by refugees during the last 12 months prior to data collection. Univariate logistic regression models were performed to assess the relationship between burns and associated risk factors.

RESULTS

From the 1468 households surveyed, a total of 223 households experienced a burn in the last 12 months. Over 63% of burns occurred in children under the age of ten years and almost 57% of burns occurred in females. More than 70% of burns resulted from hot liquid, while 17% were caused by direct heat contact. Over 3/4ths of burns occurred while preparing food (77.4%). Approximately 32% of those burned did not seek healthcare, of which almost 85% noted the cause was mainly due to financial limitations.

CONCLUSION

Burns are a common injury in the Syrian refugee population living in Lebanon. Children and women are particularly impacted, often during cooking. Multi-level interventions are necessary to reduce burn injuries and improve care for those affected by burns. Community kitchens can be used to separate cooking and living environments and get stoves and hot liquids off the floor. Importantly, policies should allow for refugees to receive medical care when necessary without a major financial burden.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Improved Methods for Fire Risk Assessment in Low-Income and Informal Settlements

Fires cause over 300,000 deaths annually worldwide and leave millions more with permanent injuries: some 95% of these deaths are in low- and middle-income countries. Burn injury risk is strongly associated with low-income and informal (or slum) settlements, which are growing rapidly in an urbanising world. Fire policy and mitigation strategies in poorer countries are constrained by inadequate data on incidence, impacts, and causes, which is mainly due to a lack of capacity and resources for data collection, analysis, and modelling. As a first step towards overcoming such challenges, this project reviewed the literature on the subject to assess the potential of a range of methods and tools for identifying, assessing, and addressing fire risk in low-income and informal settlements; the process was supported by an expert workshop at University College London in May 2016. We suggest that community-based risk and vulnerability assessment methods, which are widely used in disaster risk reduction, could be adapted to urban fire risk assessment, and could be enhanced by advances in crowdsourcing and citizen science for geospatial data creation and collection. To assist urban planners, emergency managers, and community organisations who are working in resource-constrained settings to identify and assess relevant fire risk factors, we also suggest an improved analytical framework based on the Haddon Matrix.