| Literature DB >> 31272979 |
Rushdia Ahmed1, Nadia Farnaz1, Bachera Aktar1, Raafat Hassan1, Sharid Bin Shafique1, Pushpita Ray1, Abdul Awal1, Atiya Rahman1, Veronique Urbaniak2, Loulou Hassan Kobeissi2, Jeffries Rosie3, Lale Say2, Md Tanvir Hasan1, Zahidul Quayyum1, Sabina Faiz Rashid1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rohingya diaspora are one of the most vulnerable groups seeking refuge in camps of Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, arising an acute humanitarian crisis. More than half of the Rohingya refugees are women and adolescent girls requiring quality sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. Minimum initial service package of SRH are being rendered in the refugee camps; however, WHO is aiming to provide integrated comprehensive SRH services to meet the unmet needs of this most vulnerable group. For sustainable and successful implementation of such comprehensive SRH service packages, a critical first step is to undertake a situation analysis and understand the current dimensions and capture the lessons learnt on their SRH-specific needs and implementation challenges. This situation analysis is pertinent in current humanitarian condition and will provide an overview of the needs, availability and delivery of SRH services for adolescent girls and women, barriers in accessing and providing those services in Rohingya refugee camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, and similar humanitarian contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A concurrent mixed-methods design will be used in this study. A community-based household survey coupled with facility assessments as well as qualitative in-depth interviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions will be conducted with community people of Rohingya refugee camps and relevant stakeholders providing SRH services to Rohingya population in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Survey data will be analysed using univariate, bivariate and multivariable regression statistics. Descriptive analysis will be done for facility assessment and thematic analysis will be conducted with qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from Institutional Review Board of BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health (2018-017-IR) has been obtained. Findings from this research will be disseminated through presentations in local, national and international conferences, workshops, peer-reviewed publications, policy briefs and interactive project report. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent girls; humanitarian crises; rohingya refugees; sexual and reproductive health; situation analysis; women
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31272979 PMCID: PMC6615844 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Sampling techniques to conduct situation analysis. FGDs, focus group discussions; IDIs, in-depth interviews; INGOs, international non-government organisation; KIIs, key informant interviews; PHC, primary healthcare.
Distribution of sample size for household survey
| Primary study population | Total number of individuals | Percentage (%) | Sample size | Sample size considering 10% non-response |
| Adolescent girls aged 12–17 years | 60 084 | 22.3 | 88 | 99 |
| Women aged 18–59 years | 209 261 | 77.7 | 307 | 341 |
| Total number of women and adolescent girls aged 12–59 years | 269 345 | 100 | 395 | 440 |
Sampling frame and characteristics for each qualitative activity
| Activity and focus | Sampling strategy | Respondent groups | Estimated numbers |
| Activity 1: KIIs | Opportunistic/emergent sampling | Local and international NGO programme leads, managers, SRH focal points, influential workers, government high officials and programme managers. | 5 |
| Influential community members: Majhii, imam, female imam and Burmese teachers. | 9 | ||
| Activity 2: IDIs | Purposive sampling | Rohingya women aged 18–59 years. | 9 |
| Rohingya adolescent girls (12–17 years old). | 9 | ||
| Opportunistic/emergent sampling | Formal providers such as midwife, health centre in-charge, doctors, nurses and community health workers. | 11 | |
| Informal providers such as traditional birth attendants, Burmese doctor and traditional healers. | 9 | ||
| Activity 3: FGDs | Purposive sampling | Rohingya adult males. | 3 FGDs with maximum 6 |
FGDs, focus group discussions; KIIs, key informant interviews; NGOs, non-government organisation; SRH, sexual and reproductive health.
Types and numbers of facilities for facility assessment
| Upazila | Camp name/ | Categories of health facilities | ||||
| Health post | Primary healthcare facility | Labour room or SRH only | Secondary health facility | Community clinic | ||
| Ukhiya | Camp-1W | 1 | – | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Camp-3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Camp-5 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Camp-7 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Camp-10 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Camp-1 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Camp-17 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Kutupalong RC | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Teknaf | Camp-21 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 |
| Camp-22 | 1 | 1 | – | |||
| Camp-26 | 1 | – | – | |||
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
| |
SRH, sexual and reproductive health.