Search

The Sudan 2023 Humanitarian Response Plan was revised in May, 2023, due to the escalating violence in the country. This revision increased the scale of assistance and protection activities and suspended the funding allocated for access to livelihood, access to basic services, and for the implementation of resilience solutions. We call to rethink Sudan's current humanitarian response through a pro-resilience and people-centred approach. A pro-resilience approach prioritises investments in national systems and institutions capable of delivering aid and anticipates, prevents, mitigates, and manages imminent and simultaneous shocks. A people-centred humanitarian response involves meaningful engagement of communities and collaborations with civil society organisations, which continue to be the key responders to the ongoing conflict in Sudan. Finally, we propose approaches to effectively operationalise health system resilience to enhance immediate and long-term health outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no interests to declare.

In health outcomes terms, the poorest countries stand to lose the most from these disruptions. In this paper, we make the case for a rational approach to public sector health spending and decision making during and in the early recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on ethics and equity principles, it is crucial to ensure that patients not infected by COVID-19 continue to get access to healthcare and that the services they need continue to be resourced. We present a list of 120 essential non-COVID-19 health interventions that were adapted from the model health benefit packages developed by the Disease Control Priorities project., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The growing involvement of anthropologists in medical humanitarian response efforts has laid bare the moral and ethical consequences that emerge from humanitarian action. Anthropologists are well placed to examine the social, political, cultural and economic dimensions that influence the spread of diseases, and the ways in which to respond to epidemics. Anthropologists are also, with care, able to turn a critical lens on medical humanitarian response. However, there remains some resistance to involving anthropologists in response activities in the field. Drawing on interviews with anthropologists and humanitarian workers involved in the 2014-2016 West African Ebola epidemic, this paper reveals the complex roles taken on by anthropologists in the field and reveals how anthropologists faced questions of legitimacy vis-à-vis communities and responders in their roles in response activities, which focused on acting as 'firefighters' and 'cultural brokers' as well as legitimacy as academic researchers. Whilst these anthropologists were able to conduct research alongside these activities, or draw on anthropological knowledge to inform response activities, questions also arose about the legitimacy of these roles for anthropological academia. We conclude that the process of gaining legitimacy from all these different constituencies is particular to anthropologists and reveals the role of 'giving voice' to communities alongside critiquing medical humanitarianism. Whilst these anthropologists have strengthened the argument for the involvement of anthropologists in epidemic response this anthropological engagement with medical humanitarianism has revealed theoretical considerations more broadly for the discipline, as highlighted through engagement in other fields, especially in human rights and global health.

Introduction: Humanitarian crises continue to pose a significant threat to health; the United Nations estimates that 144 million people are directly affected by conflict or environmental disasters. During most humanitarian crises, surgical and rehabilitative interventions remain a priority., Objectives: This review assessed the quality of evidence that informs injury and physical rehabilitation interventions in humanitarian crises., Methods: Peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were assessed in a systematic manner. Selected papers were evaluated using quality criteria based on a modified version of the STROBE protocol., Results: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. 63 % of the papers referred to situations of armed conflict, of which the Yugoslav Wars were the most studied crisis context. 59 % of the studies were published since the year 2000. However, only two studies were considered of a high quality., Conclusions: While there is now a greater emphasis on research in this sector, the volume of evidence remains inadequate given the growing number of humanitarian programmes worldwide. Further research is needed to ensure a greater breadth and depth of understanding of the most appropriate interventions in different settings.