Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:29:34.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing Collaboration during Humanitarian Response: An Interim Report from Stakeholders Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Shivani Parmar ,
Ano Lobb ,
Susan Purdin  and
Sharon McDonnell
Shivani Parmar*
Affiliation:
Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
Ano Lobb
Affiliation:
Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
Susan Purdin
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in Clinical Population and Family Health, Program on Forced Migration and Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Senior Technical Advisor for Reproductive Health, International Rescue Committee, New York, New York, USA
Sharon McDonnell
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
*
Shivani Parmar, MPH c/o Humanitarian Health Conference Survey, 1406 Hunter's Glen Drive Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of humanitarian response efforts has long been hampered by a lack of coordination among responding organizations. The need for increased coordination and collaboration, as well as the need to better understand experiences with coordination, were recognized by participants of a multilateral Working Group convened to examine the challenges of coordination in humanitarian health responses. This preliminary study is an interim report of an ongoing survey designed by the Working Group to describe the experiences of coordination and collaboration in greater detail, including factors that promote or discourage coordination and lessons learned, and to determine whether there is support for a new consortium dedicated to coordination. To date, 30 key informants have participated in 25-minute structured interviews that were recorded and analyzed for major themes. Participants represented 21 different agencies and organizations: nine non-governmental organizations, eight academic institutions, two donor organizations, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Common themes that emerged included the role of donors in promoting coordination, the need to build an evidence base, the frequent occurrence of field-level coordination, and the need to build new partnerships. Currently, there is no consensus that a new consortium would be helpful.

Addressing the underlying structural and professional factors that currently discourage coordination may be a more effective method for enhancing coordination during humanitarian responses.

Keywords

collaborationcoordinationhumanitarian responsesurvey
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 414 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Oyegbite, K: What have we learned? Coordination. Prehospital Disast Med 2005;20(6):471–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Procacci, P, Doran, R, Chunkath, SR, et al. : Session 1.5: Health policy and coordination: A critical review of experiences. Prehospital Disast Med 2005;20(6):393–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Lee, VJ, Low, E: Coordination and resource maximization during disaster relief efforts. Prehospital Disast Med 2006;21(1):s8–s12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Mister, L: Natural disasters—Humanitarian coordination among international agencies: Experience from Pakistan and the tsunami. Refugee Survey Quarterly 2006;25(4):122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Schull, MJ, Shanks, L: Complex emergencies: Expected and unexpected consequences. Prehospital Disast Med 2001;16(4):192–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Redmond, AD:Needs assessments of humanitarian crises. BMJ 2005;330:1320–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Zoraster, RM: Barriers to disaster coordination: Health sector coordination in Banda Aceh following the South Asia Tsunami. Prehospital Disast Med 2006;21(1):s13–s18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Griekspoor, A, Sondorp, E: Enhancing the quality of humanitarian assistance: Taking stock and future initiatives. Prehospital Disast Med 2001;16(4):209–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: IASC interim self-assessment of implementation of the cluster approach in the field. New York: UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee 66th Working Group Meeting, November 2006.Available at http://ocha.unog.ch/humanitarianreform/ Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/Introduction/IASC%20Interi m%20Self%20Assessment.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2007.Google Scholar
10.Zwi, AB: How should the health community respond to violent political conflict? PLoS Med 2004;1(1):e14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Banatvala, N, Zwi, AB: Conflict and health. Public health and humanitarian interventions: Developing the evidence base. BMJ 2000;321:101–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed