Vulnerabilities of Local Healthcare Providers in Complex Emergencies: Findings from the Manipur Micro-level Insurgency Database 2008-2009

Underestimating attacks: comparing two sources of publicly-available data about attacks on health care in 2017

BACKGROUND

Attacks on health care represent an area of growing international concern. Publicly available data are important in documenting attacks, and are often the only easily accessible data source. Data collection processes about attacks on health and their implications have received little attention, despite the fact that datasets and their collection processes may result in differing numbers. Comparing two separate datasets compiled using publicly-available data revealed minimal overlap. This article aims to explain the reasons for the lack of overlap, to better understand the gaps and their implications.

METHODS

We compared the data collection processes for datasets comprised of publicly-reported attacks on health care from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Insecurity Insight's Security in Numbers Database (SiND). We compared each individual event to compile a comparable dataset and identify unique and matched events in order to determine the overlap between them. We report descriptive statistics for this comparison.

RESULTS

We identified a common dataset of 287 events from 2017, of which only 33 appeared in both datasets, resulting in a mere 12.9% (n = 254) overlap. Events affecting personnel and facilities appeared most often in both, and 22 of 31 countries lacked any overlap between datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the minimal overlap suggests significant underreporting of attacks on health care, and furthermore, that dataset definitions and parameters affect data collection. Source variation appears to best explain the discrepancies and closer comparison of the collection processes reveal weaknesses of both automated and manual data collection that rely on hidden curation processes. To generate more accurate datasets compiled from public sources requires systematic work to translate definitions into effective online search mechanisms to better capture the full range of events, and to increase the diversity of languages and local sources to better capture events across geographies.

Violence against healthcare in conflict: a systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research

BACKGROUND

Attacks on health care in armed conflict, including those on health workers, facilities, patients and transports, represent serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Information about these incidents and their characteristics are available in myriad forms: as published research or commentary, investigative reports, and within online data collection initiatives. We review the research on attacks on health to understand what data they rely on, what subjects they cover and what gaps exist in order to develop a research agenda going forward.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This study utilizes a systematic review of peer-reviewed to identify and understand relevant data about attacks on health in situations of conflict. We identified 1479 papers published before January 1, 2020 using systematic and hand-searching and chose 45 articles for review that matched our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on geographical and conflict foci, methodology, objectives and major themes. Among the included articles, 26 focused on assessment of evidence of attacks, 15 on analyzing their impacts, three on the legal and human rights principles and one on the methods of documentation. We analyzed article data to answer questions about where and when attacks occur and are investigated, what types of attacks occur, who is perpetrating them, and how and why they are studied. We synthesized cross-cutting themes on the impacts of these attacks, mitigation efforts, and gaps in existing data.

CONCLUSION

Recognizing limitations in the review, we find there have been comparatively few studies over the past four decades but the literature is growing. To deepen the discussions of the scope of attacks and to enable cross-context comparisons, documentation of attacks on health must be enhanced to make the data more consistent, more thorough, more accessible, include diverse perspectives, and clarify taxonomy. As the research on attacks on health expands, practical questions on how the data is utilized for advocacy, protection and accountability must be prioritized.

Health care workers in conflict and post-conflict settings: Systematic mapping of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are essential for the delivery of health care services in conflict areas and in rebuilding health systems post-conflict.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically identify and map the published evidence on HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings. Our ultimate aim is to inform researchers and funders on research gap on this subject and support relevant stakeholders by providing them with a comprehensive resource of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic mapping of the literature. We included a wide range of study designs, addressing any type of personnel providing health services in either conflict or post-conflict settings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and built two interactive systematic maps organized by country, study design and theme.

RESULTS

Out of 13,863 identified citations, we included a total of 474 studies: 304 on conflict settings, 149 on post-conflict settings, and 21 on both conflict and post-conflict settings. For conflict settings, the most studied counties were Iraq (15%), Syria (15%), Israel (10%), and the State of Palestine (9%). The most common types of publication were opinion pieces in conflict settings (39%), and primary studies (33%) in post-conflict settings. In addition, most of the first and corresponding authors were affiliated with countries different from the country focus of the paper. Violence against health workers was the most tackled theme of papers reporting on conflict settings, while workforce performance was the most addressed theme by papers reporting on post-conflict settings. The majority of papers in both conflict and post-conflict settings did not report funding sources (81% and 53%) or conflicts of interest of authors (73% and 62%), and around half of primary studies did not report on ethical approvals (45% and 41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic mapping provides a comprehensive database of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale that is often needed to inform policies and strategies on effective workforce planning and management and in reducing emigration. It can also be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps to direct future primary research, and knowledge clusters.

Measurement of attacks and interferences with health care in conflict: validation of an incident reporting tool for attacks on and interferences with health care in eastern Burma

Background

Attacks on health care in armed conflict and other civil disturbances, including those on health workers, health facilities, patients and health transports, represent a critical yet often overlooked violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. Reporting has been limited yet local health workers working on the frontline in conflict are often the victims of chronic abuse and interferences with their care-giving. This paper reports on the validation and revision of an instrument designed to capture incidents via a qualitative and quantitative evaluation method.

Methods

Based on previous research and interviews with experts, investigators developed a 33-question instrument to report on attacks on healthcare. These items would provide information about who, what, where, when, and the impact of each incident of attack on or interference with health. The questions are grouped into 4 domains: health facilities, health workers, patients, and health transports. 38 health workers who work in eastern Burma participated in detailed discussion groups in August 2013 to review the face and content validity of the instrument and then tested the instrument based on two simulated scenarios. Completed forms were graded to test the inter-rater reliability of the instrument.

Results

Face and content validity were confirmed with participants expressing that the instrument would assist in better reporting of attacks on health in the setting of eastern Burma where they work. Participants were able to give an accurate account of relevant incidents (86% and 82% on Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively). Item-by-item review of the instrument revealed that greater than 95% of participants completed the correct sections. Errors primarily occurred in quantifying the impact of the incident on patient care. Revisions to the translated instrument based on the results consisted primarily of design improvements and simplification of some numerical fields.

Conclusion

This instrument was validated for use in eastern Burma and could be used as a model for reporting violence towards health care in other conflict settings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1752-1505-8-23) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.