| Literature DB >> 32536966 |
Shafiq Mirzazada1, Zahra Ali Padhani2, Sultana Jabeen2, Malika Fatima2, Arjumand Rizvi3, Uzair Ansari3, Jai K Das2, Zulfiqar A Bhutta4,5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since decades, the health system of Afghanistan has been in disarray due to ongoing conflict. We aimed to explore the direct effects of conflict on provision of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH&N) services and describe the contextual factors influencing these services.Entities:
Keywords: Afghanistan; Child health; Conflict; Humanitarian; Maternal health; Nutrition
Year: 2020 PMID: 32536966 PMCID: PMC7288441 DOI: 10.1186/s13031-020-00285-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Confl Health ISSN: 1752-1505 Impact factor: 2.723
Fig. 1Conflict related events and battle related deaths in Afghanistan
Participant Demographics of Key Informant Interviews
| Variable | Key Informant Interviews | |
|---|---|---|
| No. | (%) | |
| Number of participants | 34 | |
| Faryab | 13 | (38.2) |
| Helmand | 13 | (38.2) |
| Kabul | 08 | (23.5) |
| Male | 11 | (32.3) |
| Female | 23 | (67.6) |
| Secondary Education | 00 | (00) |
| Graduate | 25 | (73.5) |
| Masters or Other Advanced Degree | 09 | (26.4) |
| Below 10 | 11 | (32.3) |
| 10–20 | 18 | (52.9) |
| 21–30 | 03 | (8.8) |
| 30 Above | 02 | (5.8) |
| Development Partners | 05 | (14.7) |
| Government | 13 | (38.2) |
| NGOs | 16 | (47.0) |
| Center Based | 27 | (79.4) |
| District Based | 00 | (00) |
| Facility Based | 07 | (20.5) |
Fig. 2Provincial ratings by conflict severity in 2003–2010 and 2010–2018 based on the Delphi exercise
Fig. 3National trends in reproductive and maternal interventions from 2003 to 2015
Fig. 4National trends in nutritional interventions from 2002 to 2016
Fig. 5Mean difference in the coverage of key RMNCH indicators for Afghanistan by conflict category based on the Delphi methodology from 2003 to 2015
Multivariate analysis for Afghanistan for the effect of conflict on key indicators using the Delphi methodology
| Outcome | Conflict Type | Bivariate | Multivariate | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR. | 95% CI | OR. | 95% CI | ||||||
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.73 | 0.63 | 0.84 | < 0.0001 | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.90 | 0.001 | |
| Severe | 0.76 | 0.57 | 1.01 | 0.057 | 0.98 | 0.74 | 1.30 | 0.896 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.002 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.96 | 0.014 | |
| Severe | 0.87 | 0.65 | 1.17 | 0.355 | 1.12 | 0.83 | 1.51 | 0.450 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.94 | 0.77 | 1.15 | 0.564 | 1.06 | 0.86 | 1.31 | 0.564 | |
| Severe | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.36 | < 0.0001 | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.55 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.95 | 0.015 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 1.10 | 0.268 | |
| Severe | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.37 | < 0.0001 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.57 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.65 | 0.52 | 0.81 | < 0.0001 | 0.75 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.025 | |
| Severe | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.36 | < 0.0001 | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.56 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 1.02 | 0.78 | 1.34 | 0.895 | 0.75 | 0.58 | 0.98 | 0.036 | |
| Severe | 3.12 | 2.38 | 4.09 | < 0.0001 | 2.80 | 2.09 | 3.76 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.47 | 0.38 | 0.58 | < 0.0001 | 0.70 | 0.54 | 0.91 | 0.007 | |
| Severe | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.32 | < 0.0001 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.33 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 1.49 | 1.15 | 1.93 | 0.003 | 1.21 | 0.91 | 1.61 | 0.194 | |
| Severe | 1.52 | 1.07 | 2.16 | 0.019 | 1.36 | 0.95 | 1.94 | 0.096 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.91 | 0.70 | 1.17 | 0.463 | 1.28 | 0.95 | 1.72 | 0.099 | |
| Severe | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.48 | < 0.0001 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 0.55 | < 0.0001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 1.06 | 0.82 | 1.38 | 0.643 | 1.09 | 0.84 | 1.43 | 0.504 | |
| Severe | 0.73 | 0.49 | 1.09 | 0.126 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 1.09 | 0.122 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 1.82 | 1.32 | 2.52 | < 0.0001 | 2.59 | 1.79 | 3.73 | < 0.0001 | |
| Severe | 2.91 | 1.56 | 5.43 | 0.003 | 4.44 | 1.86 | 10.61 | 0.001 | |
| Minimal | Ref. | Ref. | |||||||
| Moderate | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.67 | < 0.0001 | 0.58 | 0.45 | 0.75 | < 0.0001 | |
| Severe | 0.89 | 0.62 | 1.28 | 0.53 | 0.94 | 0.65 | 1.36 | 0.756 | |
ANC Antenatal care, SBA Skilled birth attendants, BCG Bacillus Calmette–Guérin, DPT Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, ORT Oral rehydration therapy, ARI Acute respiratory infection, CI Confidence interval, EBF Exclusive Breastfeeding
Fig. 6Themes from Key Informant Interviews
Facilitators, barriers and recommendation affecting health system in conflict areas of Afghanistan
| Facilitators | Barriers | Recommendations | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Workforce | - Hiring of qualified local people along with incentives for retention | - Unpredictable security conditions | - Hire more female staff and reduce gender imbalance |
| - Security threats | - Send female staff on rotation basis to conflict areas | ||
| - Lack of female health workers | - Provide adequate training | ||
| - Absenteeism and lack of capacity of healthcare staff | - Provide housing and basic necessities | ||
| - - Low salaries | - Merit based hiring | ||
| - Absence of accommodation and basic facilities for doctors | - Doctors or staff to provide replacements when going on leave | ||
| - Quacks (traditional or religious healers) are preferred by people over doctors | |||
| Service Delivery | - BPHS and EPHS has improved service delivery (through contracting out) | - Non-functional healthcare facilities | - SOPs should be implemented |
| - Changing demographic pattern | - Work on infrastructure for the uptake of health care intervention | ||
| - Establishment of various new primary healthcare facilities | - No services in remote areas | ||
| - Lack of HIV prevention program, orthopedic care, dental care, laboratory and screening tests and emergency care | - Stringent monitoring mechanisms using technology | ||
| - Improve community awareness and mobilization activities | |||
| - Poor infrastructure | - Improving CMWs functionality | ||
| Supplies and Commodities | - Different donors provide different supplies and services | - Short budget allocation on supplies | -Procurement decisions at the province level |
| - Enough supplies were provided | - Conflict blocked supplies to the facilities | - Procurement systems to simplified and made efficient | |
| - Supply of fake medicines and documentation | - Strict monitoring | ||
| - Allocation of budget for medicines not revised according to present needs | - Stringent quality checks | ||
| - Absence of diagnostic facilities | |||
| Monitoring and Reporting | - Developed SOPs | - Poor quality of data | - Promote E-Health |
| - Encourage third party monitoring | - Preference of manual work over computer use | - Improve quality of data | |
| - EHIS system for reporting | - Capacity gap | - Do situational analysis before implementation | |
| -Data to be used for decision | |||
| Finances | - Donor dependent funding | - Insufficient funds | - To ensure sustainability of funding for existing programs |
| - Delay in release of funds from the donors | |||
| - Poor practice of budget allocation and improper utilization of funds |
CMW Community Midwives, SOPs Standard Operating Procedure, MnE Monitoring and Evaluatio, EHIS Evaluation and Health Information System