To explain the project to those who are working to provide essential health services to people affected by the emergency,
especially those who no longer have access to routine health services
To solicit the input of the meeting attendees into the directions the project should take, to help us identify key informants,
potential roadblocks, and other issues
To help us refine the protocol to make it more specific to the Nigeria setting
To agree to cooperate and participate in the qualitative data collection phase of the project
The essential aims of the project are:
1. To elucidate the processes by which health sector interventions are decided upon in emergency settings (for us, in Nigeria,
for others, in the other countries, so that we can draw some general conclusions.
2. To understand the differences in the way emergency health services delivery are approached, as compared to routine health
service delivery: for example, what are the differences, in process and in outcome, between routine childhood vaccinations
delivered through the EPI and mass vaccination campaigns?
3. To understand what happens both “compound areas” where both emergency and routine service delivery takes place
simultaneously, as well as to understand what happens, or is planned to happen, in places where the emergency subsides and
routine services are re-established: which interventions are added earliest and why? Is there a clear process in place to
hasten health sector recovery, or it is done in an ad hoc fashion?
In order to achieve these objectives of the project, we are using a combined quantitative/qualitative approach, trying to look at all of
the available data that has been collected in the emergency areas and other areas of concern (surveillance data, surveys, from
Government and UN agency and NGO and other sources). We are planning to conduct a series of interviews with key informants
that are intended to provide depth and context to the available information. By analyzing trends and assessing impact a cross the 10
case studies, we hope to be able to make important policy recommendations regarding health sector programming (at least for
RMNCH) in conflict-affected areas, which have lagged behind more stable settings in terms of morbidity and mortality reduction.