Haar Rohini J, Read Róisín, Fast Larissa, Blanchet Karl, Rinaldi Stephanie, Taithe Bertrand, Wille Christina, Rubenstein Leonard S
Division of Epidemiology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, CA, USA.
University of Manchester, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, Manchester, UK.
Confl Health. 2021 May 7;15(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s13031-021-00372-7.
Attacks on health care in armed conflict, including those on health workers, facilities, patients and transports, represent serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Information about these incidents and their characteristics are available in myriad forms: as published research or commentary, investigative reports, and within online data collection initiatives. We review the research on attacks on health to understand what data they rely on, what subjects they cover and what gaps exist in order to develop a research agenda going forward.
This study utilizes a systematic review of peer-reviewed to identify and understand relevant data about attacks on health in situations of conflict. We identified 1479 papers published before January 1, 2020 using systematic and hand-searching and chose 45 articles for review that matched our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on geographical and conflict foci, methodology, objectives and major themes. Among the included articles, 26 focused on assessment of evidence of attacks, 15 on analyzing their impacts, three on the legal and human rights principles and one on the methods of documentation. We analyzed article data to answer questions about where and when attacks occur and are investigated, what types of attacks occur, who is perpetrating them, and how and why they are studied. We synthesized cross-cutting themes on the impacts of these attacks, mitigation efforts, and gaps in existing data.
Recognizing limitations in the review, we find there have been comparatively few studies over the past four decades but the literature is growing. To deepen the discussions of the scope of attacks and to enable cross-context comparisons, documentation of attacks on health must be enhanced to make the data more consistent, more thorough, more accessible, include diverse perspectives, and clarify taxonomy. As the research on attacks on health expands, practical questions on how the data is utilized for advocacy, protection and accountability must be prioritized.
武装冲突中对医疗保健的攻击,包括对医护人员、设施、患者和运输工具的攻击,构成了对人权和国际人道法的严重侵犯。关于这些事件及其特征的信息有多种形式:如已发表的研究或评论、调查报告以及在线数据收集倡议。我们回顾关于医疗攻击的研究,以了解它们所依赖的数据、涵盖的主题以及存在的差距,从而制定未来的研究议程。
本研究对同行评议文献进行系统综述,以识别和理解冲突情况下医疗攻击的相关数据。我们通过系统检索和手工检索,确定了2020年1月1日前发表的1479篇论文,并选择了45篇符合纳入标准的文章进行综述。我们提取了关于地理和冲突焦点、方法、目标和主要主题的数据。在所纳入的文章中,26篇关注攻击证据的评估,15篇分析其影响,3篇涉及法律和人权原则,1篇涉及记录方法。我们分析文章数据,以回答关于攻击发生和调查的地点与时间、发生的攻击类型、实施者是谁以及如何和为何进行研究等问题。我们综合了关于这些攻击的影响、缓解措施以及现有数据差距的贯穿各领域的主题。
认识到综述存在的局限性,我们发现过去四十年来相关研究相对较少,但文献数量在增加。为深化对攻击范围的讨论并实现跨背景比较,必须加强对医疗攻击的记录,以使数据更一致、更全面、更易获取,纳入不同观点并明确分类法。随着对医疗攻击研究的扩展,必须优先考虑如何将数据用于宣传、保护和问责等实际问题。