Background Conflict-related injuries sustained by civilians and local combatants are poorly described, unlike injuries sustained by US, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and coalition military personnel. An understanding of injury epidemiology in twenty-first century armed conflict is required to plan humanitarian trauma systems capable of responding to population needs. Methods We conducted a systematic search of databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization Catalog, Google Scholar) and grey literature repositories to identify records that described conflictrelated injuries sustained by civilians and local combatants since 2001. Results The search returned 3501 records. 49 reports representing conflicts in 18 countries were included in the analysis and described injuries of 58,578 patients. 79.3% of patients were male, and 34.7% were under age 18 years. Blast injury was the predominant mechanism (50.2%), and extremities were the most common anatomic region of injury (33.5%). The heterogeneity and lack of reporting of data elements prevented pooled analysis and limited the generalizability of the results. For example, data elements including measures of injury severity, resource utilization (ventilator support, transfusion, surgery), and outcomes other than mortality (disability, quality of life measures) were presented by fewer than 25% of reports. Conclusions Data describing the needs of civilians and local combatants injured during conflict are currently inadequate to inform the development of humanitarian trauma systems. To guide system-wide capacity building and quality improvement, we advocate for a humanitarian trauma registry with a minimum set of data elements.

IMPORTANCE Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols. OBJECTIVE To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The working group's method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018. RESULTS Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.

No abstract

. Nomadic pastoralists are among the world’s hardest-to-reach and least served populations. Pastoralist communities are difficult to capture in household surveys because of factors including their high degree of mobility over remote terrain, fluid domestic arrangements, and cultural barriers. Most surveys use census-based sampling frames which do not accurately capture the demographic and health parameters of nomadic populations. As a result, pastoralists are “invisible” in population data such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). By combining remote sensing and geospatial analysis, we developed a sampling strategy designed to capture the current distribution of nomadic populations. We then implemented this sampling frame to survey a population of mobile pastoralists in southwest Ethiopia, focusing on maternal and child health (MCH) indicators. Using standardized instruments from DHS questionnaires, we draw comparisons with regional and national data finding disparities with DHS data in core MCH indicators, including vaccination coverage, skilled birth attendance, and nutritional status. Our field validation demonstrates that this method is a logistically feasible alternative to conventional sampling frames and may be used at the population level. Geospatial sampling methods provide cost-affordable and logistically feasible strategies for sampling mobile populations, a crucial first step toward reaching these groups with health services.

Background Decades of war left the Republic of South Sudan with a fragile health system that has remained deprived of resources since the country’s independence. We describe the coverage of interventions for women’s and children’s health in Upper Nile and Unity states, and explore factors that affected service provision during a protracted conflict. Methods We conducted a case study using a desk review of publicly available literature since 2013 and a secondary analysis of intervention coverage and conflict-related events from 2010 to 2017. During June through September 2018, we conducted 26 qualitative interviews with technical leads and 9 focus groups among health workers working in women and children’s health in Juba, Malakal, and Bentiu. Results Coverage for antenatal care, institutional delivery, and childhood vaccines were low prior to the escalation of conflict in 2013, and the limited data indicate that coverage remained low through 2017. Key factors that determined the delivery of services for women and children in our study sites were government leadership, coordination of development and humanitarian efforts, and human resource capacity. Participants felt that national and local health officials had a limited role in the delivery of services, and financial tracking data showed that funding stagnated or declined for humanitarian health and development programming during 2013–2014. Although health services were concentrated in camp settings, the availability of healthcare providers was negatively impacted by the protracted nature of the conflict and insecurity in the region. Conclusions Health care for women and children should be prioritized during acute and protracted periods of conflict by strengthening surveillance systems, coordinating short and long term activities among humanitarian and development organizations, and building the capacity of national and local government officials to ensure sustainability.