Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Feb 2;9(1):S1.
doi: 10.1186/1752-1505-9-S1-S1. eCollection 2015.

Evaluations of reproductive health programs in humanitarian settings: a systematic review

Affiliations

Evaluations of reproductive health programs in humanitarian settings: a systematic review

Sara E Casey. Confl Health. .

Abstract

Provision of reproductive health (RH) services is a minimum standard of health care in humanitarian settings; however access to these services is often limited. This systematic review, one component of a global evaluation of RH in humanitarian settings, sought to explore the evidence regarding RH services provided in humanitarian settings and to determine if programs are being evaluated. In addition, the review explored which RH services receive more attention based on program evaluations and descriptive data. Peer-reviewed papers published between 2004 and 2013 were identified via the Ovid MEDLINE database, followed by a PubMed search. Papers on quantitative evaluations of RH programs, including experimental and non-experimental designs that reported outcome data, implemented in conflict and natural disaster settings, were included. Of 5,669 papers identified in the initial search, 36 papers describing 30 programs met inclusion criteria. Twenty-five papers described programs in sub-Saharan Africa, six in Asia, two in Haiti and three reported data from multiple countries. Some RH technical areas were better represented than others: seven papers reported on maternal and newborn health (including two that also covered family planning), six on family planning, three on sexual violence, 20 on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and two on general RH topics. In comparison to the program evaluation papers identified, three times as many papers were found that reported RH descriptive or prevalence data in humanitarian settings. While data demonstrating the magnitude of the problem are crucial and were previously lacking, the need for RH services and for evaluations to measure their effectiveness is clear. Program evaluation and implementation science should be incorporated into more programs to determine the best ways to serve the RH needs of people affected by conflict or natural disaster. Standard program design should include rigorous program evaluation, and the results must be shared. The papers demonstrated both that RH programs can be implemented in these challenging settings, and that women and men will use RH services when they are of reasonable quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Systematic review flow chart

References

    1. Reproductive freedom for refugees. The Lancet. 1993;341:929–930. - PubMed
    1. Wulf D. Refugee Women and Reproductive Health Care: Reassessing Priorities. New York: Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children; 1994. http://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/resources/document/583-refugee-wo...
    1. Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. Cairo; 1994. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html
    1. Inter-agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises. Inter-agency field manual on reproductive health in humanitarian settings. Geneva; 2010. http://www.iawg.net/resources/field_manual.html - PubMed
    1. Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Refugee Situations. Report of an Inter-Agency Global Evaluation of Reproductive Health Services for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. Geneva; 2004. http://www.iawg.net/resources/2004_global_eval

LinkOut - more resources