BackgroundIn conflict settings, research capacities have often been de-prioritized as resources are diverted to emergency needs, such as addressing elevated morbidity, mortality and health system challenges directly and/or indirectly associated to war. This has had an adverse long-term impact in such protracted conflicts such as those found in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), where research knowledge and skills have often been compromised. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework for health research capacity strengthening that adapts existing models and frameworks in low- and middle-income countries and uses our knowledge of the MENA context to contextualise them for conflict settings.MethodsThe framework was synthesized using “best fit” framework synthesis methodology. Relevant literature, available in English and Arabic, was collected through PubMed, Google Scholar and Google using the keywords: capacity building; capacity strengthening; health research; framework and conflict. Grey literature was also assessed.ResultsThe framework is composed of eight principal themes: “structural levels”, “the influence of the external environment”, “funding, community needs and policy environment”, “assessing existing capacity and needs”, “infrastructure and communication”, “training, leadership and partnership”, “adaptability and sustainability”, and “monitoring and evaluation”; with each theme being supported by examples from the MENA region. Our proposed framework takes into consideration safety, infrastructure, communication and adaptability as key factors that affect research capacity strengthening in conflict. As it is the case more generally, funding, permissible political environments and sustainability are major determinants of success for capacity strengthening for health research programmes, though these are significantly more challenging in conflict settings. Nonetheless, health research capacity strengthening should remain a priority.ConclusionThe model presented is the first framework that focuses on strengthening health research capacity in conflict with a focus on the MENA region. It should be viewed as a non-prescriptive reference tool for health researchers and practitioners, from various disciplines, involved in research capacity strengthening to evaluate, use, adapt and improve. It can be further extended to include representative indicators and can be later evaluated by assessing its efficacy for interventions in conflict settings.

Objectives To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. Design Policy mapping and systematic review Data sources and eligibility criteria for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. Conclusion Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

Objectives Despite the rising risk factor exposure and non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality across the Middle East and the North African (MENA) region, public health policy responses have been slow and appear discordant with the social, economic and political circumstances in each country. Good health policy and outcomes are intimately linked to a research-active culture, particularly in NCD. In this study we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of NCD research with particular a focus on cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in 10 key countries that represent a spectrum across MENA between 1991 and 2018. Methods The study uses a well validated bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the ten leading countries in biomedical research in the MENA region on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science database. We used filters for each of the three NCDs and biomedical research to identify relevant papers in the WoS. The countries selected for the analyses were based on the volume of research outputs during the period of analysis and stability, included Egypt,

Background Cancer represents a substantial health burden for refugees and host countries. However, no reliable data on the costs of cancer care for refugees are available, which limits the planning of official development assistance in humanitarian settings. We aimed to model the direct costs of cancer care among Syrian refugee populations residing in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.Methods In this population-based modelling study, direct cost per capita and per incident case for cancer care were estimated using generalised linear models, informed by a representative dataset of cancer costs drawn from 27 EU countries. A range of regression specifications were tested, in which cancer costs were modelled using different independent variables: gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, crude or age-standardised incidence, crude or agestandardised mortality, and total host country population size. Models were compared using the Akaike information criterion. Total cancer care costs for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey were calculated by multiplying the estimated direct cancer care costs (per capita) by the total number of Syrian refugees, or by multiplying the estimated direct cancer costs (per incident case [crude or age-standardised]) by the number of incident cancer cases in Syrian refugee populations. All costs are expressed in 2017 euros (€).Findings Total cancer care costs for all 4•74 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey in 2017 were estimated to be €140•23 million using the cost per capita approach, €79•02 million using the age-standardised incidence approach, and €33•68 million using the crude incidence approach. Under the lowest estimation, and with GDP and total country population as model predictors, the financial burden of cancer care was highest for Turkey (€25•18 million), followed by Lebanon (€6•40 million), and then Jordan (€2•09 million).Interpretation Cancer among the Syrian refugee population represents a substantial financial burden for host countries and humanitarian agencies, such as the UN Refugee Agency. New ways to provide financial assistance need to be found and must be coupled with clear, prioritised pathways and models of care for refugees with cancer.

BackgroundAdaptation refers to the systematic approach for considering the endorsement or modification of recommendations produced in one setting for application in another as an alternative to de novo development.ObjectiveTo describe and assess the methods used for adapting health–related guidelines published in peer–reviewed journals, and to assess the quality of the resulting adapted guidelines.MethodsWe searched Medline and Embase up to June 2015. We assessed the method of adaptation, and the quality of included guidelines.ResultsSeventy–two papers were eligible. Most adapted guidelines and their source guidelines were published by professional societies (71% and 68% respectively), and in high–income countries (83% and 85% respectively). Of the 57 adapted guidelines that reported any detail about adaptation method, 34 (60%) did not use a published adaptation method. The number (and percentage) of adapted guidelines fulfilling each of the ADAPTE steps ranged between 2 (4%) and 57 (100%). The quality of adapted guidelines was highest for the “scope and purpose” domain and lowest for the “editorial independence” domain (respective mean percentages of the maximum possible scores were 93% and 43%). The mean score for “rigor of development” was 57%.ConclusionMost adapted guidelines published in peer–reviewed journals do not report using a published adaptation method, and their adaptation quality was variable.

No abstract

Background Management of cancer in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is accompanied by multiple challenges including heterogeneous access to early detection and treatment options and limited implementation of national cancer control plans. Furthermore, protracted armed conflicts across the region have had dramatic effects, including disruption of healthcare systems and the migration of healthcare professionals. Strengthening capacity for cancer research has been identified as a key intervention to correct data poverty, inform policy, manage limited resources and improve health outcomes. Objective The main objective of this study is to gain insights into the landscape, barriers and enablers of cancer training, research and care in the MENA region. Method We utilised purposive sampling to interview 16 key informants from a diverse academic, medical and research background originating from countries affected by conflicts, such as Lebanon, and from active conflict zones including Iraq and Syria. Results The themes that emerged from the interviews focused on the barriers to cancer care, barriers to cancer research and training, strengths and importance of cancer research and training recommendations. The detrimental effect of conflict on cancer provision and research was a cross-cutting sub-theme disrupting cancer care provision and research due to unsafe environments, fragmented facilities, absence of drugs and migration of personnel. When asked about perceived optimal training format for cancer research, most informants recommended a post-graduate, face-to-face training focusing on cancer research methods and concepts. Conclusion This study offers a unique insight into the barriers affecting cancer research and capacity-strengthening priorities from oncologists and researchers working in conflict-affected areas of the MENA region. These data will form the base for future capacity-strengthening initiatives addressing specific regional challenges.

No abstract