人道主义讲卫生反应的差距:受危机影响的人、从业人员、全球反应者和文献的观点

IF 2.4 3区 管理学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Disasters Pub Date : 2022-11-22 DOI:10.1111/disa.12571
Travis Yates, Andy Bastable, John Allen, Cecilie Hestbæk, Bushra Hasan, Paul Hutchings, Monica Ramos, Tula Ngasala, Daniele Lantagne
{"title":"人道主义讲卫生反应的差距:受危机影响的人、从业人员、全球反应者和文献的观点","authors":"Travis Yates,&nbsp;Andy Bastable,&nbsp;John Allen,&nbsp;Cecilie Hestbæk,&nbsp;Bushra Hasan,&nbsp;Paul Hutchings,&nbsp;Monica Ramos,&nbsp;Tula Ngasala,&nbsp;Daniele Lantagne","doi":"10.1111/disa.12571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions prevent and control disease in humanitarian response. To inform future funding and policy priorities, WASH ‘gaps’ were identified via 220 focus-group discussions with people affected by crises and WASH practitioners, 246 global survey respondents, and 614 documents. After extraction, 2,888 (48 per cent) gaps from direct feedback and 3,151 (52 per cent) from literature were categorised. People affected by crises primarily listed ‘services gaps’, including a need for water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, and hygiene items. Global survey respondents principally cited ‘mechanism gaps’ in providing services, including collaboration, WASH staffing expertise, and community engagement. Literature highlighted gaps in health (but not other) WASH intervention impacts. Overall, people affected by crises wanted the ‘what’ (services), responders wanted the ‘how’ (to supply), and researchers wanted the ‘why’ (health consequences). This study suggests a need for a renewed focus on basic WASH services, collaboration across stakeholders, and research on WASH outcomes beyond health.</p>","PeriodicalId":48088,"journal":{"name":"Disasters","volume":"47 3","pages":"830-846"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/disa.12571","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in humanitarian WASH response: perspectives from people affected by crises, practitioners, global responders, and the literature\",\"authors\":\"Travis Yates,&nbsp;Andy Bastable,&nbsp;John Allen,&nbsp;Cecilie Hestbæk,&nbsp;Bushra Hasan,&nbsp;Paul Hutchings,&nbsp;Monica Ramos,&nbsp;Tula Ngasala,&nbsp;Daniele Lantagne\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/disa.12571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions prevent and control disease in humanitarian response. To inform future funding and policy priorities, WASH ‘gaps’ were identified via 220 focus-group discussions with people affected by crises and WASH practitioners, 246 global survey respondents, and 614 documents. After extraction, 2,888 (48 per cent) gaps from direct feedback and 3,151 (52 per cent) from literature were categorised. People affected by crises primarily listed ‘services gaps’, including a need for water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, and hygiene items. Global survey respondents principally cited ‘mechanism gaps’ in providing services, including collaboration, WASH staffing expertise, and community engagement. Literature highlighted gaps in health (but not other) WASH intervention impacts. Overall, people affected by crises wanted the ‘what’ (services), responders wanted the ‘how’ (to supply), and researchers wanted the ‘why’ (health consequences). This study suggests a need for a renewed focus on basic WASH services, collaboration across stakeholders, and research on WASH outcomes beyond health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disasters\",\"volume\":\"47 3\",\"pages\":\"830-846\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/disa.12571\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disasters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/disa.12571\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disasters","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/disa.12571","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

水、环境卫生和个人卫生(讲卫生)干预措施在人道主义应对中预防和控制疾病。为了为未来的资金和政策重点提供信息,通过与受危机影响的人们和讲卫生工作者进行的220次焦点小组讨论、246名全球调查受访者以及614份文件,确定了讲卫生的“差距”。提取后,对直接反馈中的2888个(48%)缺口和文献中的3151个(52%)缺口进行了分类。受危机影响的人们主要列出了“服务缺口”,包括对水、卫生设施、固体废物处理和卫生用品的需求。全球调查的受访者主要提到了在提供服务方面的“机制差距”,包括合作、讲卫生人员配备专业知识和社区参与。文献强调了卫生(但不是其他)讲卫生运动干预影响方面的差距。总的来说,受危机影响的人想知道“什么”(服务),回应者想知道“如何”(提供),而研究人员想知道“为什么”(健康后果)。这项研究表明,需要重新关注基本的讲卫生服务、各利益攸关方之间的合作,以及对卫生以外的讲卫生成果进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Gaps in humanitarian WASH response: perspectives from people affected by crises, practitioners, global responders, and the literature

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions prevent and control disease in humanitarian response. To inform future funding and policy priorities, WASH ‘gaps’ were identified via 220 focus-group discussions with people affected by crises and WASH practitioners, 246 global survey respondents, and 614 documents. After extraction, 2,888 (48 per cent) gaps from direct feedback and 3,151 (52 per cent) from literature were categorised. People affected by crises primarily listed ‘services gaps’, including a need for water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, and hygiene items. Global survey respondents principally cited ‘mechanism gaps’ in providing services, including collaboration, WASH staffing expertise, and community engagement. Literature highlighted gaps in health (but not other) WASH intervention impacts. Overall, people affected by crises wanted the ‘what’ (services), responders wanted the ‘how’ (to supply), and researchers wanted the ‘why’ (health consequences). This study suggests a need for a renewed focus on basic WASH services, collaboration across stakeholders, and research on WASH outcomes beyond health.

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
Disasters
Disasters Multiple-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.10%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Disasters is a major, peer-reviewed quarterly journal reporting on all aspects of disaster studies, policy and management. It provides a forum for academics, policymakers and practitioners to publish high-quality research and practice concerning natural catastrophes, anthropogenic disasters, complex political emergencies and protracted crises around the world. The journal promotes the interchange of ideas and experience, maintaining a balance between field reports, case study articles of general interest and academic papers. Disasters: Is the leading journal in the field of disasters, protracted crises and complex emergencies Influences disaster prevention, mitigation and response policies and practices Adopts a world-wide geographical perspective Contains a mix of academic papers and field studies Promotes the interchange of ideas between practitioners, policy-makers and academics.
期刊最新文献
Famine and food security: new trends and systems or politics as usual? An introduction. Five levels of famine prevention: towards a framework for the twenty-first century and beyond. Food insecurity, xenophobia, and political legitimacy: exploring the links in post-COVID-19 South Africa. Food systems in protracted crises: examining indigenous food sovereignty amid de-development in Kashmir. Sudan's catastrophe: the role of changing dynamics of food and power in the Gezira agricultural scheme.
×
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