ArticleBMJ public health2026
Emergency, critical and operative care in Afghanistan: pathways to overcoming fragmentation and strengthening access in a post-conflict setting-a mixed-method study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emergency, critical and operative (ECO) services are essential pillars of a resilient healthcare system and are integral to achieving universal health coverage, especially in post-conflict low- and middle-income countries like Afghanistan. The objective of this study is to evaluate the capacity, safety and availability of ECO services, and to understand their integration relation with barriers, facilitators and system level factors contributing to the delay to receive ECO care in nine Afghan provinces. Methods: This study used a concurrent mixed-methods approach with explanatory data analysis and interpretation. Quantitative data were obtained from adapted WHO Harmonized Health Facility Assessment and WHO Surgical Assessment Tool, complemented by qualitative interviews with hospital directors, surgeons and gynaecologists from 11 Ministry of Public Health-led facilities including maternal, district, provincial and regional hospitals across nine provinces. The dimensions of staff, supplies, infrastructure, safety protocols, training, and surgical and obstetric/gynaecological capacity were assessed. Interviews explored providers' perspectives on accessibility, referral systems, training and gendered barriers to care. Results: Data revealed significant gaps in workforce, safety, emergency protocols, anaesthesia staff, resuscitation equipment and diagnostic tools. No facility met the WHO benchmark for essential surgical services. The 11 interviews confirmed systemic fragmentation, lack of communication across facilities, informal referrals, frequent supply shortages and restricted access to care for women, exacerbated by social and cultural norms. Staff often worked without pay, and training was irregular. Conclusions: Afghan ECO care is fragmented and staffing and structural limitations and socio-political factors contribute to fatal delays. Leveraging existing processes such as the non-governmental organisation networks-especially amid critical underfunding for international agencies-may offer pragmatic low-cost strategies to strengthen ECO services in the Afghan post-conflict context, while future work should focus on people-centred needs assessment.
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.