ArticleBMJ open2023
Responsible exit of humanitarian aid agencies at the end of programmes: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Great East Japan Earthquake reconstruction process in Rikuzentakata City: the trajectory of support activities and local self-sufficiency.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding the organization and delivery of health services following the repatriation of South Sudanese refugees from the West Nile districts in Uganda.Conflict and health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn humanitarian settings, aid agencies are constantly challenged by difficult decisions such as when and how to terminate aid without harming the aid recipients, local institutions, staff members and the organisation. Despite important efforts devoted to responsibly leaving a setting, hurtful exits are still common in contemporary relief aid. Moreover, debates on how humanitarian aid agencies exit are limited, with no previous comprehensive evidence synthesis on the concept of 'responsible exit'. The objective of this scoping review is to map evidence and knowledge gaps, to identify and describe concepts, theories and existing frameworks related to 'responsible exit' of humanitarian aid agencies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our search uses searches of several bibliographic databases (CAB Direct (including Global Health), Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar) as well as manual searches of specific journals and retrieval of grey literature through searches of organisational websites and direct contact with experts and organisations. Reference tracking will be used to identify additional sources. Searches will cover papers available up to the dates of the searches (December 2022 to January 2023), with no date restrictions applied to the literature search. To be included, published or unpublished papers must explicitly discuss the exit of humanitarian aid agencies from humanitarian settings and be accessible. We will exclude all exits related to military, local and governmental humanitarian operations, education, development, employment, and business sectors. Only papers written in English and French will be considered. Three reviewers will conduct the selection process against the predefined criteria. Data will be extracted in an iterative process following pre-established items and the results will be presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews flow chart, tables and/or graphs, and descriptive formats. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Being a review, conducted on publicly available information, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated through publication in an open access journal, scientific conferences, workshops, and via humanitarian aid agencies to facilitate further research and possible practical translations of generated knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.