Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34798877›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2021

Use of COVID-19 evidence in humanitarian settings: the need for dynamic guidance adapted to changing humanitarian crisis contexts.

Alex Odlum, Rosemary James, Audrey Mahieu, Karl Blanchet, Chiara Altare, Neha Singh, Paul Spiegel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Alex OdlumGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, Boulevard du Pont-d'Arve 28, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. alex.odlum@graduateinstitute.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9281-9835
Rosemary JamesGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, Boulevard du Pont-d'Arve 28, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Audrey MahieuGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, Boulevard du Pont-d'Arve 28, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Karl BlanchetGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, Boulevard du Pont-d'Arve 28, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Chiara AltareCenter for Humanitarian Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Neha SinghHealth in Humanitarian Crises Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Paul SpiegelCenter for Humanitarian Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor humanitarian organisations to respond effectively to complex crises, they require access to up-to-date evidence-based guidance. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of updating global guidance to context-specific and evolving needs in humanitarian settings. Our study aimed to understand the use of evidence-based guidance in humanitarian responses during COVID-19. Primary data collected during the rapidly evolving pandemic sheds new light on evidence-use processes in humanitarian response.

methodsWe collected and analysed COVID-19 guidance documents, and conducted semi-structured interviews remotely with a variety of humanitarian organisations responding and adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform, a website established by three universities in March 2020, to solicit, collate and document these experiences and knowledge.

resultsWe analysed 131 guidance documents and conducted 80 interviews with humanitarian organisations, generating 61 published field experiences. Although COVID-19 guidance was quickly developed and disseminated in the initial phases of the crisis (from January to May 2020), updates or ongoing revision of the guidance has been limited. Interviews conducted between April and September 2020 showed that humanitarian organisations have responded to COVID-19 in innovative and context-specific ways, but have often had to adapt existing guidance to inform their operations in complex humanitarian settings.

conclusionsExperiences from the field indicate that humanitarian organisations consulted guidance to respond and adapt to COVID-19, but whether referring to available guidance indicates evidence use depends on its accessibility, coherence, contextual relevance and trustworthiness. Feedback loops through online platforms like the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform that relay details of these evidence-use processes to global guidance setters could improve future humanitarian response.

Indexed as

COVID-19EvidenceGuidanceHumanitarianOnline platform

Identifiers

PMID34798877
PMCPMC8602975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.