Globally, humanitarian crises—such as armed conflict, forced displacement, natural disasters and major disease outbreaks—affect more people today than at any point in recorded history. These crises have immense acute and long-term health impacts on hundreds of millions of people, predominantly in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), yet the evidence base that informs how humanitarian organisations respond to them is weak. Humanitarian crises are often treated as an outlier in global health. However, they are an increasingly common and widespread driver of health that should be integrated into comprehensive approaches and strategies, especially if we hope to achieve ambitious global health targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals. The academic research community can play an important role in addressing the evidence gap in humanitarian health. There are important scientific questions of high public health relevance that can only be addressed by conducting research in humanitarian settings. While working in these settings is uniquely challenging, there are effective strategies that can be employed, such as using flexible and adaptive research methodologies, partnering with non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian actors, and devoting greater attention to issues of research ethics, community engagement, local LMIC-based partners, building humanitarian research capacity and collaborating across disciplines.

Despite the fact that the 15 leading causes of global deaths and disability-adjusted life years are from conditions amenable to emergency care, and that this burden is highest in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a paucity of research on LMIC emergency care to guide policy making, resource allocation and service provision. A literature review of the 550 articles on LMIC emergency care published in the 10-year period from 2007 to 2016 yielded 106 articles for LMIC emergency care surveillance and registry research. Few articles were from established longitudinal surveillance or registries and primarily composed of short-term data collection. Using these articles, a working group was convened by the US National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center to discuss challenges and potential solutions for established systems to better understand global emergency care in LMICs. The working group focused on potential uses for emergency care surveillance and registry data to improve the quality of services provided to patients. Challenges included a lack of dedicated resources for such research in LMIC settings as well as over-reliance on facility-based data collection without known correlation to the overall burden of emergency conditions in the broader community. The group outlined potential solutions including incorporating data from sources beyond traditional health records, use of standard clinical forms that embed data needed for research and policy making and structured population-based research to establish clear linkages between what is seen in emergency units and the wider community. The group then identified current gaps in LMIC emergency care surveillance and registry research to form a research agenda for the future.

Based on collaborative, interdisciplinary efforts, a research agenda was developed to provide guidance that advances efforts to adapt the current health system to deliver integrated chronic care for PLHIV and the population at large.

A large proportion of the total global burden of disease is caused by emergency medical conditions. Emergency care research is essential to improving emergency medicine but this research can raise some distinctive ethical challenges, especially with regard to (1) standard of care and risk–benefit assessment; (2) blurring of the roles of clinician and researcher; (3) enrolment of populations with intersecting vulnerabilities; (4) fair participant selection; (5) quality of consent; and (6) community engagement. Despite the importance of research to improve emergency care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the widely acknowledged ethical challenges, very little has been written on the ethics of emergency care research in LMICs. This paper examines the ethical and regulatory challenges to conducting emergency care research with human participants in LMICs. We outline key challenges, present potential solutions or frameworks for addressing these challenges, and identify gaps. Despite the ethical and regulatory challenges, conducting high-quality, ethical emergency care research in LMICs is possible and it is essential for global health.

Quality emergency medical care is critical to reducing the burden of disease in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and protecting the health of populations during disasters and epidemics. However, conducting research in emergency care settings in LMIC settings entails unique methodological and operational challenges. Therefore, new approaches and strategies that address these challenges need to be developed and will require increased attention from scientists, academic institutions and the global health research funding community. Research priorities to address emergency care in LMICs have also not been well defined, resulting in limited research output from LMICs. This manuscript frames the efforts of four multidisciplinary working groups, which were established under the auspices of the Fogarty International Center as part of the Collaborative on Enhancing Emergency Care Research in LMICs and serves as an introduction to this series, which identifies challenges and solutions in the context of emergency care research in LMICs. The objective of this introductory paper is to articulate the need for emergency care research in LMICs and underscore its future promise. We present public health arguments for greater investment in emergency care research, identify barriers to develop and conduct research, and present a list of research priorities for community organizations, academic institutions and funding agencies. We conclude that advances in emergency care research will be critical to achieve national and global health targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and to ensure that evidence informs how such research is best conducted.

Background Humanitarian crises, such as armed conflict, forced displacement, natural disasters, and major disease outbreaks, take a staggering toll on human health, especially in low-resource settings. Yet there is a dearth of robust evidence to inform the governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other humanitarian organizations on how to best respond to them. The Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health commissioned a collection of Research in Practice articles that highlights the experiences of scientists conducting research in the context of humanitarian crises. Unlike traditional research papers, the case analyses in this collection go beyond what research was completed and focus on why the research was important and how it was conducted in these extremely challenging settings. Discussion The papers selected for this collection span 27 countries, cover a broad range of humanitarian crises, and discuss a wide variety of disease and health risk factors. Of the 23 papers in the collection, 17 include an author from the affected country and five papers were authored by humanitarian NGOs. Throughout the collection, 43% of the authors were from low- and middle-income countries. Across the collection, some general themes emerged that are broadly applicable. Importantly, there is a clear need for more, high-quality research to address evidence gaps. Community engagement, already a key element to global health research, was highlighted as especially important for research involving populations dealing with severe trauma and disruption. Partnership with humanitarian actors, including local governments, local and international NGOs, and UN agencies, was found to be a critical strategy as well. Conclusion A variety of audiences will find this collection useful. Global health educators can utilize papers to facilitate discussion around public health practice and equitable partnerships, among other topics. Humanitarian response organizations may use the collection to consider how research may inform and improve their work. Global health researchers, funders, and other stakeholders may use the collection to stimulate dialogue around key scientific research questions and better appreciate the importance of conducting research in humanitarian crises in the context of achieving broader global health goals.

No abstract

Introduction: Integrating services for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) into existing primary care platforms such as HIV programmes has been recommended as a way of strengthening health systems, reducing redundancies and leveraging existing systems to rapidly scale-up underdeveloped programmes. Mathematical modelling provides a powerful tool to address questions around priorities, optimization and implementation of such programmes. In this study, we examine the case for NCD-HIV integration, use Kenya as a case-study to highlight how modelling has supported wider policy formulation and decision-making in healthcare and to collate stakeholders' recommendations on use of models for NCD-HIV integration decisionmaking. Discussion: Across Africa, NCDs are increasingly posing challenges for health systems, which historically focused on the care of acute and infectious conditions. Pilot programmes using integrated care services have generated advantages for both provider and user, been cost-effective, practical and achieve rapid coverage scale-up. The shared chronic nature of NCDs and HIV means that many operational approaches and infrastructure developed for HIV programmes apply to NCDs, suggesting this to be a cost-effective and sustainable policy option for countries with large HIV programmes and small, un-resourced NCD programmes. However, the vertical nature of current disease programmes, policy financing and operations operate as barriers to NCD-HIV integration. Modelling has successfully been used to inform health decision-making across a number of disease areas and in a number of ways. Examples from Kenya include (i) estimating current and future disease burden to set priorities for public health interventions, (ii) forecasting the requisite investments by government, (iii) comparing the impact of different integration approaches, (iv) performing cost-benefit analysis for integration and (v) evaluating health system capacity needs. Conclusions: Modelling can and should play an integral part in the decision-making processes for health in general and NCD-HIV integration specifically. It is especially useful where little data is available. The successful use of modelling to inform decision-making will depend on several factors including policy makers' comfort with and understanding of models and their uncertainties, modellers understanding of national priorities, funding opportunities and building local modelling capacity to ensure sustainability.