Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351171›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2022

Identifying transferable lessons from cholera epidemic responses by Médecins Sans Frontières in Mozambique, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015-2018: a scoping review.

Lauren D'Mello-Guyett, Oliver Cumming, Elliot Rogers, Rob D'hondt, Estifanos Mengitsu, Maria Mashako, Rafael Van den Bergh, Placide Okitayemba Welo, Peter Maes, Francesco Checchi

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Plant-based edible vaccines: Can cholera be the case study in Africa?Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Time to invest in cholera.EClinicalMedicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lauren D'Mello-GuyettDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. lauren.dmello-guyett@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8174-1737
Oliver CummingDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Elliot RogersDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rob D'hondtEnvironmental Health Unit, Médecins Sans Frontières, Brussels, Belgium.
Estifanos MengitsuEnvironmental Health Unit, Médecins Sans Frontières, Brussels, Belgium.
Maria MashakoMédecins Sans Frontières, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Rafael Van den BerghLuxOR, Luxembourg Operational Research Unit, Médecins Sans Frontières, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Placide Okitayemba WeloProgramme National d'Elimination du Choléra et de lutte contre les autres Maladies Diarrhéiques, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Peter MaesWASH Section, UNICEF, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Francesco ChecchiDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMédecins Sans Frontières · BEMédecins Sans Frontières · LUProgramme National Multisectoriel de Lutte contre le sida · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCholera epidemics occur frequently in low-income countries affected by concurrent humanitarian crises. Evaluations of these epidemic response remains largely unpublished and there is a need to generate evidence on response efforts to inform future programmes. This review of MSF cholera epidemic responses aimed to describe the main characteristics of the cholera epidemics and related responses in these three countries, to identify challenges to different intervention strategies based on available data; and to make recommendations for epidemic prevention and control practice and policy.

methodsCase studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi and Mozambique were purposively selected by MSF for this review due to the documented burden of cholera in each country, frequency of cholera outbreaks, and risk of humanitarian crises. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the epidemics; time between alert and response; and, the delivery of health and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions. A Theory of Change for cholera response programmes was built to assess factors that affected implementation of the responses. RESULTS AND

conclusions20 epidemic response reports were identified, 15 in DRC, one in Malawi and four in Mozambique. All contexts experienced concurrent humanitarian crises, either armed conflict or natural disasters. Across the settings, median time between the date of alert and date of the start of the response by MSF was 23 days (IQR 14-41). Almost all responses targeted interventions community-wide, and all responses implemented in-patient treatment of suspected cholera cases in either established health care facilities (HCFs) or temporary cholera treatment units (CTUs). In three responses, interventions were delivered as case-area targeted interventions (CATI) and four responses targeted households of admitted suspected cholera cases. CATI or delivery of interventions to households of admitted suspected cases occurred from 2017 onwards only. Overall, 74 factors affecting implementation were identified including delayed supplies of materials, insufficient quantities of materials and limited or lack of coordination with local government or other agencies. Based on this review, the following recommendations are made to improve cholera prevention and control efforts: explore improved models for epidemic preparedness, including rapid mobilisation of supplies and deployment of trained staff; invest in and strengthen partnerships with national and local government and other agencies; and to standardise reporting templates that allow for rigorous and structured evaluations within and across countries to provide consistent and accessible data.

Indexed as

CholeraEmergencyHygieneOral cholera vaccinationOutbreaksSanitationWater

Identifiers

PMID35351171
PMCPMC8966369
OpenAlexW4220673800

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.