Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31406596›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

Responding to epidemics in large-scale humanitarian crises: a case study of the cholera response in Yemen, 2016-2018.

Paul Spiegel, Ruwan Ratnayake, Nora Hellman, Mija Ververs, Moise Ngwa, Paul H Wise, Daniele Lantagne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Paul SpiegelDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ruwan RatnayakeDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4978-6668
Nora HellmanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mija VerversDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Moise NgwaDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Paul H WiseDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Daniele LantagneDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge epidemics frequently emerge in conflict-affected states. We examined the cholera response during the humanitarian crisis in Yemen to inform control strategies.

methodsWe conducted interviews with practitioners and advisors on preparedness; surveillance; laboratory; case management; malnutrition; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); vaccination; coordination and insecurity. We undertook a literature review of global and Yemen-specific cholera guidance, examined surveillance data from the first and second waves (28 September 2016-12 March 2018) and reviewed reports on airstrikes on water systems and health facilities (April 2015-December 2017). We used the Global Task Force on Cholera Control's framework to examine intervention strategies and thematic analysis to understand decision making.

resultsYemen is water scarce, and repeated airstrikes damaged water systems, risking widespread infection. Since a cholera preparedness and response plan was absent, on detection, the humanitarian cluster system rapidly developed response plans. The initial plans did not prioritise key actions including community-directed WASH to reduce transmission, epidemiological analysis and laboratory monitoring. Coordination was not harmonised across the crisis-focused clusters and epidemic-focused incident management system. The health strategy was crisis focused and was centralised on functional health facilities, underemphasising less accessible areas. As vaccination was not incorporated into preparedness, consensus on its use remained slow. At the second wave peak, key actions including data management, community-directed WASH and oral rehydration and vaccination were scaled-up.

conclusionDespite endemicity and conflict, Yemen was not prepared for the epidemic. To contain outbreaks, conflict-affected states, humanitarian agencies, and donors must emphasise preparedness planning and community-directed responses.

Indexed as

armed conflictscholeracommunicable disease controlemergenciesepidemics

Identifiers

PMID31406596
PMCPMC6666825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.