No abstract

Background Since December 2018, the latest wave of anti-government protests in Sudan has led to deaths, injuries and detentions. We estimated the number of people killed and described patterns of deaths, injuries and detentions up to 9 April 2019. Methods We tabulated data from three publicly available lists maintained by Sudanese civil society sources (the Independent Movement, the Sudan Doctors’ Union and the “Lest We Forget” project), and applied to these a capture-recapture statistical technique that models the overlap among lists to estimate the number of deaths not on any list. Results We estimated that about 117 civilians were killed in demonstrations during the above period, a considerably larger number than hitherto reported. Most decedents and injury victims were shot. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates the importance of real-time data on political violence collected by civil society initiatives. The de facto Sudanese government should immediately cease attacks against peaceful civilian protesters and put in place guarantees for their safety. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13031-019-0199-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Large international humanitarian actors support and directly deliver health services for millions of people in crises annually, and wield considerable power to decide which health services to provide, how and to whom, across a vast spectrum of health areas. Despite decades of reform aiming to improve accountability in the sector, public health practice among humanitarian actors is not heavily scrutinized in either the countries where they are headquartered or those where they provide healthcare. We surveyed current healthcare governance practice among large international humanitarian actors to better understand what organisations are doing to ensure oversight and accountability for health services in humanitarian responses. Methods The term ‘healthcare governance’ was defined and categorised into seven domains: implementation of health management information systems (HMIS) and use of resulting data; professional development of health sector staff; audits of health service performance; management of clinical incidents; evidence-based practice; pharmaceutical supply; and beneficiary engagement. Senior health professionals at 32 leading international actors providing humanitarian health services were contacted between July and August 2019 to complete a 109-question online survey about their organisation’s practice in these domains. Results Respondents from 13 organisations completed the questionnaire. Healthcare governance practices were undertaken to varying degrees by all organisations but were often driven by donor requirements and external factors rather than improvement of programme performance. Common strengths were the inclusion of governance in organisational policies, high availability of technical guidelines, and close monitoring of pharmaceutical services. Recurring weaknesses were poor beneficiary engagement, inconsistent use of health information for decision making, unsystematic implementation of healthcare audits, inconsistent management of clinical incidents, and lack of training and professional development opportunities. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe healthcare governance practice among humanitarian actors. Leading international humanitarian healthcare providers are already implementing many healthcare governance activities; however, these are inconsistently applied and generally not reflective of systematic policies or earmarked organisational resources. There is a need for sector-wide consensus on how the humanitarian sector defines healthcare governance, the domains that constitute it, which actors in the humanitarian system are implicated, and how malpractice should be systematically addressed.

This paper presents findings from a literature review of methods that explicitly assess the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. We set out to highlight the key features and limitations of each method and introduce a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian responses. This review is part of a broader project to enhance the accountability of humanitarian responses through developing auditing approaches for real-time monitoring. We identified eight methods that explicitly analyse the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. The review revealed that existing methods vary considerably in their definitions of 'appropriateness', provide insufficient guidance on measurement, are vulnerable to interpretive bias and frequently report findings on 'appropriateness' in an ambiguous manner. These findings suggest that, as a matter of accountability, more structured and systematic approaches to measuring the appropriateness of humanitarian response are needed. We propose a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian response that seeks to address the limitations identified in the review. We provide a brief overview of the main components and features of a systematic approach and audit tool for assessing the 'appropriateness' of a humanitarian response. The use of this and other systematic approaches is essential for enhancing governance and accountability in humanitarian responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to cause high morbidity and mortality in crisis-affected populations. Delivering COVID-19 treatment services in crisis settings will likely entail complex trade-offs between offering services of clinical benefit and minimising risks of nosocomial infection, while allocating resources appropriately and safeguarding other essential services. This paper outlines considerations for humanitarian actors planning COVID-19 treatment services where vaccination is not yet widely available. We suggest key decision-making considerations: allocation of resources to COVID-19 treatment services and the design of clinical services should be based on community preferences, likely opportunity costs, and a clearly articulated package of care across different health system levels. Moreover, appropriate service planning requires information on the expected COVID-19 burden and the resilience of the health system. We explore COVID-19 treatment service options at the patient level (diagnosis, management, location and level of treatment) and measures to reduce nosocomial transmission (cohorting patients, protecting healthcare workers). Lastly, we propose key indicators for monitoring COVID-19 health services.

Background Shielding of high-risk groups from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been suggested as a realistic alternative to severe movement restrictions during the COVID-19 epidemic in low-income countries. The intervention entails the establishment of ‘green zones’ for high-risk persons to live in, either within their homes or in communal structures, in a safe and dignified manner, for extended periods of time during the epidemic. To our knowledge, this concept has not been tested or evaluated in resource-poor settings. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield persons at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, during the COVID-19 epidemic in six communities in Sudan. Methods We purposively sampled participants from six communities, illustrative of urban, rural and forcibly-displaced settings. In-depth telephone interviews were held with 59 members of households with one or more members at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Follow-up interviews were held with 30 community members after movement restrictions were eased across the country. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a two-stage deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results Most participants were aware that some people are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes but were unaware of the concept of shielding. Most participants found shielding acceptable and consistent with cultural inclinations to respect elders and protect the vulnerable. However, extra-household shielding arrangements were mostly seen as socially unacceptable. Participants reported feasibility concerns related to the reduced socialisation of shielded persons and loss of income for shielding families. The acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies were reduced after movement restrictions were eased, as participants reported lower perception of risk in their communities and increased pressure to comply with social commitments outside the house. Conclusion Shielding is generally acceptable in the study communities. Acceptability is influenced by feasibility, and by contextual changes in the epidemic and associated policy response. The promotion of shielding should capitalise on the cultural and moral sense of duty towards elders and vulnerable groups. Communities and households should be provided with practical guidance to implement feasible shielding options. Households must be socially, psychologically and financially supported to adopt and sustain shielding effectively.

No abstract

No abstract