SynthesisBMJ global health2025
Civil society and perilous medicine in Africa: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConflict has not been a public health priority for governmental organisations, and evidence on civil society organisation (CSO) contributions to the issue is limited. The present study synthesised the available evidence on the role of CSOs in conflict and health in Africa.
methodsWe employed a systematic review using a systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science and Scopus for English written articles between 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2023. The four concepts for the search included CSO or non-governmental organisation (NGO), conflict, health and Africa.
results14 documents are included in the review. We found that CSOs were engaged in (a) advocacy-CSOs have been advocating to local and national governments, international bodies, and for fund raising; (b) social and medical provision-CSOs have been filling services gaps through delivering medical, health and psychological care and outreach services; (c) material support-CSOs have been providing shelter, food, clothing, and building public infrastructure such as health facilities, roads and water; (d) health diplomacy-CSOs act as Global health diplomats as health is also a key factor in foreign affairs, security and trade policy and (e) accountability-CSOs have been examining the broader role of NGOs or governance.
conclusionsThe present systematic review highlights potential areas for future research, emphasising the importance of prioritising key areas for further investigation and suggesting the need for special attention to rarely addressed activities such as health diplomacy given that civil society engagement around healthcare is an important driver of Health For All.
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.