ABSTRACT
The conflict in Syria presents new and unprecedented challenges that undermine the principles and practice of medical neutrality in armed conflict. With direct and repeated targeting of health workers, health facilities, and ambulances, Syria has become the most dangerous place on earth for health-care providers. The weaponisation of health care-a strategy of using people's need for health care as a weapon against them by violently depriving them of it-has translated into hundreds of health workers killed, hundreds more incarcerated or tortured, and hundreds of health facilities deliberately and systematically attacked. Evidence shows use of this strategy on an unprecedented scale by the Syrian Government and allied forces, in what human rights organisations described as a war-crime strategy, although all parties seem to have committed violations. Attacks on health care have sparked a large-scale exodus of experienced health workers. Formidable challenges face health workers who have stayed behind, and with no health care a major factor in the flight of refugees, the effect extends well beyond Syria. The international community has left these violations of international humanitarian and human rights law largely unanswered, despite their enormous consequences. There have been repudiated denunciations, but little action on bringing the perpetrators to justice. This inadequate response challenges the foundation of medical neutrality needed to sustain the operations of global health and humanitarian agencies in situations of armed conflict. In this Health Policy, we analyse the situation of health workers facing such systematic and serious violations of international humanitarian law. We describe the tremendous pressures that health workers have been under and continue to endure, and the remarkable resilience and resourcefulness they have displayed in response to this crisis. We propose policy imperatives to protect and support health workers working in armed conflict zones.
Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Warfare , Health Policy , Humans , International Law , Public Health , Syria , Warfare/ethicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors' affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted. RESULTS: Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region. CONCLUSIONS: There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required.
