人道主义危机中水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WASH)研究的优先事项:全球优先事项排序工作

Lauren D’Mello-Guyett, Camille Heylen, Elsa Rohm, Jane Falconer, Jean Lapegue, R. Dreibelbis, Monica Ramos, Oliver Cumming, Daniele Lantagne
{"title":"人道主义危机中水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WASH)研究的优先事项:全球优先事项排序工作","authors":"Lauren D’Mello-Guyett, Camille Heylen, Elsa Rohm, Jane Falconer, Jean Lapegue, R. Dreibelbis, Monica Ramos, Oliver Cumming, Daniele Lantagne","doi":"10.1371/journal.pwat.0000217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions should provide access to safe water and sanitation, and promote good hygiene practices with dignity, comfort and security. Multiple systematic reviews have noted evidence gaps and is a paucity of good quality evidence related to the effectiveness and implementation of WASH programmes and interventions in humanitarian crises. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based actionable research priorities for the humanitarian WASH sector. A research prioritisation exercise was conducted by adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method. Research questions were compiled from a rapid scoping review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Questions were reviewed by a technical expert group. An online survey was circulated to score research questions according to five criteria. An overall prioritisation score was calculated and weighted to prioritise questions. A diverse range of 286 global WASH and health experts engaged in the CHNRI process. A list of 128 questions were generated and scored by experts. Prioritised research questions focussed on evaluating existing interventions or programmes, and making iterative changes to current programmes. Other important questions centred on describing WASH conditions and associated health risks in crises contexts. Priorities were also stratified by gender, organisation and region to understand differences globally. The WASH in Crises Research Agenda has identified key research questions of most importance to those implementing WASH in humanitarian crises and has established a list of research priorities. The identified priorities reinforce how more evidence is needed, and underlines the need for research to evaluate current practices in order to improve the quality of humanitarian response. Stakeholders, including donors, international and national organisations, governments and academic institutions, are invited to use this research agenda to encourage, inspire and enable relevant and high-quality research that will be used to inform humanitarian responses.","PeriodicalId":93672,"journal":{"name":"PLOS water","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research priorities for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in humanitarian crises: A global prioritisation exercise\",\"authors\":\"Lauren D’Mello-Guyett, Camille Heylen, Elsa Rohm, Jane Falconer, Jean Lapegue, R. Dreibelbis, Monica Ramos, Oliver Cumming, Daniele Lantagne\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pwat.0000217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions should provide access to safe water and sanitation, and promote good hygiene practices with dignity, comfort and security. Multiple systematic reviews have noted evidence gaps and is a paucity of good quality evidence related to the effectiveness and implementation of WASH programmes and interventions in humanitarian crises. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based actionable research priorities for the humanitarian WASH sector. A research prioritisation exercise was conducted by adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method. Research questions were compiled from a rapid scoping review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Questions were reviewed by a technical expert group. An online survey was circulated to score research questions according to five criteria. An overall prioritisation score was calculated and weighted to prioritise questions. A diverse range of 286 global WASH and health experts engaged in the CHNRI process. A list of 128 questions were generated and scored by experts. Prioritised research questions focussed on evaluating existing interventions or programmes, and making iterative changes to current programmes. Other important questions centred on describing WASH conditions and associated health risks in crises contexts. Priorities were also stratified by gender, organisation and region to understand differences globally. The WASH in Crises Research Agenda has identified key research questions of most importance to those implementing WASH in humanitarian crises and has established a list of research priorities. The identified priorities reinforce how more evidence is needed, and underlines the need for research to evaluate current practices in order to improve the quality of humanitarian response. Stakeholders, including donors, international and national organisations, governments and academic institutions, are invited to use this research agenda to encourage, inspire and enable relevant and high-quality research that will be used to inform humanitarian responses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS water\",\"volume\":\"38 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS water\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WASH)干预措施应提供安全饮用水和卫生设施,并提倡有尊严、舒适和安全的良好个人卫生习惯。多篇系统性综述指出了证据方面的差距,与人道主义危机中水、环境卫生和个人卫生计划及干预措施的有效性和实施相关的高质量证据十分匮乏。这项研究的目的是为人道主义 "讲卫生运动 "部门确定基于共识的可操作研究重点。通过采用儿童健康与营养研究计划(CHNRI)的方法,开展了一项研究重点排序工作。根据快速范围界定审查、关键信息提供者访谈 (KII) 和焦点小组讨论 (FGD) 编制了研究问题。技术专家组对问题进行了审查。分发了一份在线调查,根据五项标准对研究问题进行评分。计算出总体优先级得分并加权,以确定问题的优先级。286 名全球讲卫生运动和健康专家参与了 CHNRI 进程。专家们提出了 128 个问题并进行了评分。优先考虑的研究问题侧重于评估现有干预措施或计划,并对现有计划进行反复修改。其他重要问题集中在描述危机情况下讲卫生运动的条件和相关的健康风险。优先事项还按性别、组织和地区进行了分层,以了解全球范围内的差异。危机中的讲卫生运动研究议程确定了对在人道主义危机中实施讲卫生运动的人员最为重要的关键研究问题,并制定了研究重点清单。所确定的优先事项进一步说明了如何需要更多的证据,并强调需要通过研究来评估当前的做法,以提高人道主义响应的质量。我们邀请利益相关者,包括捐助者、国际和国内组织、政府和学术机构,利用本研究议程鼓励、激励和推动相关的高质量研究,为人道主义响应提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Research priorities for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in humanitarian crises: A global prioritisation exercise
Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions should provide access to safe water and sanitation, and promote good hygiene practices with dignity, comfort and security. Multiple systematic reviews have noted evidence gaps and is a paucity of good quality evidence related to the effectiveness and implementation of WASH programmes and interventions in humanitarian crises. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based actionable research priorities for the humanitarian WASH sector. A research prioritisation exercise was conducted by adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method. Research questions were compiled from a rapid scoping review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Questions were reviewed by a technical expert group. An online survey was circulated to score research questions according to five criteria. An overall prioritisation score was calculated and weighted to prioritise questions. A diverse range of 286 global WASH and health experts engaged in the CHNRI process. A list of 128 questions were generated and scored by experts. Prioritised research questions focussed on evaluating existing interventions or programmes, and making iterative changes to current programmes. Other important questions centred on describing WASH conditions and associated health risks in crises contexts. Priorities were also stratified by gender, organisation and region to understand differences globally. The WASH in Crises Research Agenda has identified key research questions of most importance to those implementing WASH in humanitarian crises and has established a list of research priorities. The identified priorities reinforce how more evidence is needed, and underlines the need for research to evaluate current practices in order to improve the quality of humanitarian response. Stakeholders, including donors, international and national organisations, governments and academic institutions, are invited to use this research agenda to encourage, inspire and enable relevant and high-quality research that will be used to inform humanitarian responses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessing state partner use of the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC): A cross comparison of five states with varying degrees of self-reported adoption status Virtual water flows in a real world Optimizing machine learning for water safety: A comparative analysis with dimensionality reduction and classifier performance in potability prediction Assessing the sustained effects of a water filter intervention: A 30-month longitudinal study in Rwamagana, Rwanda 222 nm causes greater protein damage and repair inhibition of E. coli than 254 nm for water disinfection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1