Wishful thinking versus operational commitment: is the international guidance on priority sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings becoming unrealistic?

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/619168
Title:
Wishful thinking versus operational commitment: is the international guidance on priority sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings becoming unrealistic?
Authors:
Tran, NT; Schulte-Hillen, C
Journal:
Conflict and Health
Abstract:
Twenty-one years ago, a global consortium of like-minded institutions designed the landmark Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for sexual and reproductive health (SRH) to guide national and international humanitarian first responders in preventing morbidity and mortality at the onset of chaos, destruction, and high insecurity caused by disasters or conflicts. Since then, the MISP has undergone limited change and has become an international reference in humanitarian response. This article discusses our perspectives regarding the 2018 changes to the MISP that have created division among humanitarian field practitioners, academics, advocates, and development agencies. With more than 50 pages, the new MISP chapter dilutes key guidance and messages on the most life-saving activities, leaving actors with excessive room for interpretation as to which priority activities need to be first implemented. Consequently, non-life-saving interventions may take precedence over essential ones. Insecurity, scarce human and financial resources, logistics constrains, and other limitations imposed by field reality at the onset of a crisis must be considered. We strongly recommend that an institution with the mandate, legitimacy, and technical expertise in the review of guidelines reexamines the 2018 edition of the MISP. We urge experienced first-line responders, national actors, and relevant agencies to join efforts to ensure that the MISP remains focused on a very limited set of essential activities and supplies that are pragmatic, field-oriented, and, most importantly, immediately life-saving for people in need.
Publisher:
BioMed Central
Issue Date:
29-May-2018
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/619168
DOI:
10.1186/s13031-018-0157-x
PubMed ID:
29853989
Submitted date:
2018-06-05
Language:
en
ISSN:
1752-1505
Appears in Collections:
Womens/Reproductive Health

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorTran, NTen
dc.contributor.authorSchulte-Hillen, Cen
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-12T14:49:39Z-
dc.date.available2018-06-12T14:49:39Z-
dc.date.issued2018-05-29-
dc.date.submitted2018-06-05-
dc.identifier.citationWishful thinking versus operational commitment: is the international guidance on priority sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings becoming unrealistic? 2018, 12:32 Confl Healthen
dc.identifier.issn1752-1505-
dc.identifier.pmid29853989-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13031-018-0157-x-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10144/619168-
dc.description.abstractTwenty-one years ago, a global consortium of like-minded institutions designed the landmark Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for sexual and reproductive health (SRH) to guide national and international humanitarian first responders in preventing morbidity and mortality at the onset of chaos, destruction, and high insecurity caused by disasters or conflicts. Since then, the MISP has undergone limited change and has become an international reference in humanitarian response. This article discusses our perspectives regarding the 2018 changes to the MISP that have created division among humanitarian field practitioners, academics, advocates, and development agencies. With more than 50 pages, the new MISP chapter dilutes key guidance and messages on the most life-saving activities, leaving actors with excessive room for interpretation as to which priority activities need to be first implemented. Consequently, non-life-saving interventions may take precedence over essential ones. Insecurity, scarce human and financial resources, logistics constrains, and other limitations imposed by field reality at the onset of a crisis must be considered. We strongly recommend that an institution with the mandate, legitimacy, and technical expertise in the review of guidelines reexamines the 2018 edition of the MISP. We urge experienced first-line responders, national actors, and relevant agencies to join efforts to ensure that the MISP remains focused on a very limited set of essential activities and supplies that are pragmatic, field-oriented, and, most importantly, immediately life-saving for people in need.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Conflict and Healthen
dc.titleWishful thinking versus operational commitment: is the international guidance on priority sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian settings becoming unrealistic?en
dc.identifier.journalConflict and Healthen
All Items in MSF are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.