Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Institute for Health and Society, Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs, University Louvain, Bte B1.30, 15 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 23;20(1):1761. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09851-7.
Humanitarian settings often present unique scientific challenges and conditions that distinguish them from standard research settings. While a number of these challenges are faced in both standard settings and humanitarian settings, factors unique to humanitarian settings such as inaccessibility and time sensitivities further exacerbate the effects of these challenges. This analysis focuses on experiences in post-disaster contexts such as Indonesia and India following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, and Nepal following the 2015 earthquake.
Particular issues that we faced in undertaking research in post-disaster settings include challenges with uncharted ethical and cultural considerations, non-standardised administrative methods for record keeping, data sharing and dissemination. While these issues are not unique to post-disaster humanitarian settings, the time-sensitive nature of our work exacerbated the effects of these concerns. Relying on local partners and making quick decisions to tackle issues is imperative for navigating both foreseen and unforeseen challenges. While pre-emptive action to address these concerns is the most efficient means to expedite research protocols, adaptability and contingency planning are key components of practical research implementation in dynamic situations.
Research is not always a priority in humanitarian settings, so innovative methods are necessary to conduct meaningful and situationally appropriate research in these venues. By understanding available resources, local culture, and political considerations and working efficiently and decisively, we can begin to jump hurdles associated with epidemiologic research in humanitarian settings.
人道主义环境常常呈现出独特的科学挑战和条件,使其有别于标准的研究环境。虽然这些挑战在标准环境和人道主义环境中都存在,但人道主义环境中存在的一些特有因素,如难以进入和时间敏感性,进一步加剧了这些挑战的影响。本分析重点关注 2004 年印度洋海啸后印度尼西亚和印度、2013 年台风“海燕”后菲律宾以及 2015 年尼泊尔地震后的灾后背景下的经验。
在灾后环境中开展研究时,我们面临的特定问题包括与未知的伦理和文化考虑因素相关的挑战、非标准化的行政记录保存、数据共享和传播方法。虽然这些问题并不是灾后人道主义环境所特有的,但我们工作的时间敏感性加剧了这些问题的影响。依靠当地合作伙伴并迅速做出决策来解决问题对于应对可预见和不可预见的挑战至关重要。虽然预先采取行动来解决这些问题是加快研究协议的最有效手段,但适应性和应急计划是在动态情况下实施实际研究的关键组成部分。
在人道主义环境中,研究并不总是优先事项,因此需要创新方法在这些场所进行有意义和符合情况的研究。通过了解可用资源、当地文化和政治考虑因素,并高效果断地工作,我们可以开始克服与人道主义环境中的流行病学研究相关的障碍。