ArticleBMJ global health2026
Complementary role of humanitarian civil society organisations in bridging gaps in immunisation programming in conflict and crisis-affected settings: the REACH Project experience.
Article in BMJ global 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring immunisation coverage in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings (FCAS) remains a critical global health challenge. National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) are unable to provide programming in some areas because of conflict and insecurity or the destruction of healthcare infrastructure. Humanitarian civil society organisations (CSOs) can fill those programming gaps, but they need to be able to do so promptly and effectively. This paper presents an analysis of gaps experienced by NIPs across the REACH Project, funded by Gavi to immunise 'zero-dose' children (children who did not receive any diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-containing vaccine) in FCAS in Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. We offer insights that can be used by humanitarian and immunisation CSOs that aim to overcome the challenges that NIPs face in these settings in ways that are truly complementary and not substituting for what NIPs could achieve.The NIP contributions were categorised as 'No NIP Contribution', 'Limited NIP: Geographic Limitations', 'Limited NIP: Functional Limitations' and 'Limited NIP: Transitioning Contexts' reflecting the nature and extent of NIP contributions. Based on NIP contribution context, humanitarian CSOs filled immunisation programming gaps by working with NIPs in complementary ways to re-establish or extend immunisation services and by using conflict-sensitive approaches to support immunisation programming. Different conflict-sensitive programmatic adaptations were critical based on the needs in each context.Despite variable NIP contribution levels, collaboration between NIPs and humanitarian CSOs was vital to the success of REACH. The REACH Project demonstrates how to effectively adapt immunisation programming within a context-specific hybrid NIP-humanitarian CSO model in FCAS.
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.