Background In a growing number of humanitarian crises, “remote management” is negotiated across borders and implemented by humanitarian agencies through “local actors” to deliver assistance. However, the narrative describing the involvement of local actors in the delivery of humanitarian aid in armed conflict settings remains reductionist and unreflective of the complex and circular course of the “localisation of aid”. This paper explores cross-border humanitarian assistance within the Syrian conflict. We document how humanitarian actors operate to deliver humanitarian health care in North-West Syria (Turkish border), explore their challenges and critique the language used within current debates on the localisation of aid. Methods We undertook key informant interviews with Turkey-based humanitarian aid professionals involved in the humanitarian health response inside Syria. We integrated data previously collected for The Lancet -American University of Beirut Commission on Syria during field work in Gaziantep, Turkey, through meetings, conversations, discussions and expert consultations with Syrian health professionals, WHO-Turkey staff members and members of Syrian health directorates. We also drew from background desk reviews conducted by the Commission on health systems responses and timeline of events in Turkey during the Syrian conflict. Results This paper uncovers creative and effective bottom-up strategies that enhanced cross-border coordination of aid delivery into Syria. Our findings unravel the key role played by Syrian providers in accessing vulnerable populations and in reshaping coordination and funding mechanisms inside Syria, as well as the disproportionate risks local actors bear within the response. Our findings also reveal an iterative negotiation of decision-making dynamics, a “low-profile approach” promoted to gain access to populations of concerns, and an environment that is heavily shaped by close interpersonal relationships and social trust. Conclusions Our multifaceted narrative unpacks circular flows of interactions among actors and uncovers strategies developed by practitioners on the field, which are often left undocumented. We argue that there is an opportunity for the humanitarian sector to learn from these synergies to rethink how medical humanitarianism is framed (hopefully leading to a more collaborative framing that resists mainstreaming “local” actors within a “traditional” system). There is also an opportunity for the humanitarian and global health communities to reflect on how value attributed to human lives needs to be questioned in contexts where national staff face a disproportionate risk to deliver aid.

No abstract

The need to generate evidence in spaces considered insecure and inhabited by potentially extremely vulnerable individuals (e.g. conflict-affected people who may not have means to move) has led researchers to study conflict-affected settings remotely. Increased attention to remote research approaches from social scientists, due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, is sparking interest on appropriate methods and tools. Drawing on several years’ experience of remotely conducting qualitative research in Syria, we discuss challenges and approaches to conducting more inclusive, participatory, and meaningful research from a distance. The logistics, ethics, and politics of conducting research remotely are symptomatic of broader challenges in relation to the decolonisation of global and humanitarian health research. Key to the success of remote approaches is the quality of the relationships researchers need to be able to develop with study participants without face-to-face interactions and with limited engagement ‘in the field’. Particularly given overdue efforts to decolonise research institutions and methods, lead researchers should have a meaningful connection with the area in which they are conducting research. This is critical both to reduce chances that it will be extractive and exploitative and additionally for the quality of interpretation.

BackgroundIn Senegal, only 12 % of women of reproductive age in union (WRAU) were using contraceptives and another 29 % had an unmet need for contraceptives in 2010–11. One potential barrier to accessing contraceptives is the lack of stock availability in health facilities where women seek them. Multiple supply chain interventions have been piloted in low- and middle-income countries with the aim of improving contraceptive availability in health facilities. However, there is limited evidence on the effect of these interventions on contraceptive availability in facilities, and in turn on family planning use in the population. This evaluation protocol pertains to a supply chain intervention using performance-based contracting for contraceptive distribution that was introduced throughout Senegal between 2012 and 2015.MethodsThis multi-disciplinary research project will include quantitative, qualitative and economic evaluations. Trained researchers in the different disciplines will implement the studies separately but alongside each other, sharing findings throughout the project to inform each other’s data collection. A non-randomised study with stepped-wedge design will be used to estimate the effect of the intervention on contraceptive stock availability in health facilities, and on the modern contraceptive prevalence rate among women in Senegal, compared to the current pull-based distribution model used for other commodities. Secondary data from annual Service Provision Assessments and Demographic and Health Surveys will be used for this study. Data on stock availability and monthly family planning consultations over a 4-year period will be collected from 200 health facilities in five regions to perform time series analyses. A process evaluation will be conducted to understand the extent to which the intervention was implemented as originally designed, the acceptability of third-party logisticians within the health system and potential unintended consequences. These will be assessed using monthly indicator data from the implementer and multiple ethnographic methods, including in-depth interviews with key informants and stakeholders at all levels of the distribution system, observations of third-party logisticians and clinic diaries. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost of the intervention, as well as its cost-effectiveness compared to the current supply chain model.DiscussionGiven the very limited evidence base, there is an important need for a comprehensive standardised approach to evaluating supply chain management, and distribution specifically. This evaluation will help address this evidence gap by providing rigorous evidence on whether private performance-based contracting for distribution of contraceptives can contribute to improving access to family planning in low- and middle-income countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12978-016-0163-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 set targets for donor funding to support family planning programmes, and recent initiatives such as FP2020 have renewed focus on the need for adequate funding to rights-based family planning. Disbursements supporting family planning disaggregated by donor, recipient country and year are not available for recent years. We estimate international donor funding for family planning in 2003–13, the period covering the introduction of reproductive health targets to the Millennium Development Goals and up to the beginning of FP2020, and compare funding to unmet need for family planning in recipient countries. We used the dataset of donor disbursements to support reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health developed by the Countdown to 2015 based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Creditor Reporting System. We assessed levels and trends in disbursements supporting family planning in the period 2003–13 and compared this to unmet need for family planning. Between 2003 and 2013, disbursements supporting family planning rose from under $400 m prior to 2008 to $886 m in 2013. More than two thirds of disbursements came from the USA. There was substantial year-on-year variation in disbursement value to some recipient countries. Disbursements have become more concentrated among recipient countries with higher national levels of unmet need for family planning. Annual disbursements of donor funding supporting family planning are far short of projected and estimated levels necessary to address unmet need for family planning. The reimposition of the US Global Gag Rule will precipitate an even greater shortfall if other donors and recipient countries do not find substantial alternative sources of funding.