Mobile clinics in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review.

Humanitarian Mobile clinics Mobile health clinics Mobile health units Systematic review

Journal

Conflict and health
ISSN: 1752-1505
Titre abrégé: Confl Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101286573

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 15 10 2019
accepted: 22 01 2020
entrez: 6 2 2020
pubmed: 6 2 2020
medline: 6 2 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite the widespread reliance on mobile clinics for delivering health services in humanitarian emergencies there is little empirical evidence to support their use. We report a narrative systematic review of the empirical evidence evaluating the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian settings. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, and The Cochrane Library for manuscripts published between 2000 and 2019. We also conducted a grey literature search via Global Health, Open Grey, and the WHO publication database. Empirical studies were included if they reported on at least one of the following evaluation criteria: relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: all supported the use of mobile clinics in the particular setting under study. Three studies included controls. Two studies were assessed as good quality. The studies reported on mobile clinics providing non-communicable disease interventions, mental health services, sexual and reproductive health services, and multiple primary health care services in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Haiti, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Studies assessed one or more of the following evaluation domains: relevance/appropriateness, coverage, efficiency, and effectiveness. Four studies made recommendations including: i) ensure that mobile clinics are designed to complement clinic-based services; ii) improve technological tools to support patient follow-up, improve record-keeping, communication, and coordination; iii) avoid labelling services in a way that might stigmatise attendees; iv) strengthen referral to psychosocial and mental health services; v) partner with local providers to leverage resources; and vi) ensure strong coordination to optimise the continuum of care. Recommendations regarding the Evidence supporting the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian emergencies is limited. We encourage more studies of the use of mobile clinics in emergency settings. Salary support for this review was provided under the RECAP project by United Kingdom Research and Innovation as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund, grant number ES/P010873/1.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread reliance on mobile clinics for delivering health services in humanitarian emergencies there is little empirical evidence to support their use. We report a narrative systematic review of the empirical evidence evaluating the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian settings.
METHODS METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, and The Cochrane Library for manuscripts published between 2000 and 2019. We also conducted a grey literature search via Global Health, Open Grey, and the WHO publication database. Empirical studies were included if they reported on at least one of the following evaluation criteria: relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.
FINDINGS RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria: all supported the use of mobile clinics in the particular setting under study. Three studies included controls. Two studies were assessed as good quality. The studies reported on mobile clinics providing non-communicable disease interventions, mental health services, sexual and reproductive health services, and multiple primary health care services in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Haiti, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Studies assessed one or more of the following evaluation domains: relevance/appropriateness, coverage, efficiency, and effectiveness. Four studies made recommendations including: i) ensure that mobile clinics are designed to complement clinic-based services; ii) improve technological tools to support patient follow-up, improve record-keeping, communication, and coordination; iii) avoid labelling services in a way that might stigmatise attendees; iv) strengthen referral to psychosocial and mental health services; v) partner with local providers to leverage resources; and vi) ensure strong coordination to optimise the continuum of care. Recommendations regarding the
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Evidence supporting the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian emergencies is limited. We encourage more studies of the use of mobile clinics in emergency settings.
FUNDING BACKGROUND
Salary support for this review was provided under the RECAP project by United Kingdom Research and Innovation as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund, grant number ES/P010873/1.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32021649
doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-0251-8
pii: 251
pmc: PMC6993397
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

4

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s). 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interestsSave the Children has received funding from the Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID) which itself supports the mobile clinic modality in emergencies.

Références

Confl Health. 2012 Aug 29;6(1):6
pubmed: 22932449
Public Health. 2011 Jan;125(1):55-59
pubmed: 21144540
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Apr;68(7):1332-40
pubmed: 19232808
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):010904
pubmed: 28685042
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug 03;7(8):e1000317
pubmed: 20689805
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):010902
pubmed: 28685040
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jan 10;12:9
pubmed: 22233968
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019 Jan - Feb;13(1):782-785
pubmed: 30641807
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Oct 16;17(1):361
pubmed: 29037190
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):452-477
pubmed: 23746776
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 20;13(6):e0199313
pubmed: 29924866
Reprod Health Matters. 2008 May;16(31):44-56
pubmed: 18513606

Auteurs

Catherine R McGowan (CR)

1Humanitarian Public Health Technical Unit, Save the Children UK, London, UK.
2Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, WC1H 9SH, London, UK.

Louisa Baxter (L)

1Humanitarian Public Health Technical Unit, Save the Children UK, London, UK.

Claudio Deola (C)

1Humanitarian Public Health Technical Unit, Save the Children UK, London, UK.

Megan Gayford (M)

1Humanitarian Public Health Technical Unit, Save the Children UK, London, UK.

Cicely Marston (C)

2Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, WC1H 9SH, London, UK.

Rachael Cummings (R)

1Humanitarian Public Health Technical Unit, Save the Children UK, London, UK.

Francesco Checchi (F)

3Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH