ArticleDialogues in health2022
Scaling up a monitoring and evaluation framework for sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health services and outcomes in humanitarian settings: A global initiative.
Article in Dialogues in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accountability for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Humanitarian and Disaster Situations: Case Studies from Uganda, Bangladesh, and Nepal.Health and human rights · 2025Article
- No excuses - improving child public health outcomes in humanitarian settings requires reliable data.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Advancing sexual health and well-being for all.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Reliable and rigorously collected sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent (SRMNCAH) data from humanitarian settings are often sparse and variable in quality across different settings due to the lack of a standardised set of indicators across the different agencies working in humanitarian settings. This paper aims to summarise a WHO-led global initiative to develop and scale up an SRMNCAH monitoring and evaluation framework for humanitarian settings. Methods: This research revolved around three phases. The first and the last phase involved global consultations with lead international agencies active in SRMNCAH in humanitarian settings. The second phase tested the feasibility of the proposed indicators in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Jordan, using different qualitative research methods (interviews with 92 key informants, 26 focus group discussions with 142 key stakeholders, facility assessments and observations at 25 health facilities or sites). Results: Among the 73 proposed indicators, 47 were selected as core indicators and 26 as additional indicators. Generally, there were no major issues in collecting the proposed indicators, except for those indicators that relied on death reviews or population-level data. Service availability and morbidity indicators were encouraged. Abortion and SGBV indicators were challenging to collect due to political and sociocultural reasons. The HIV and PMTCT indicators were considered as core indicators, despite potential sensitivity in some settings. Existing data collection and reporting systems across the four assessed humanitarian settings were generally fragmented and inconsistent, mainly attributed to the lack of coordination among different agencies. Interpretation: Implementing agencies need to collaborate effectively to scale up this agreed-upon set of SRMNCAH framework to enhance accountability and transparency in humanitarian settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.