Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
EDITOR - In their analysis of the Sphere standards, Griekspoor and
Collins highlighted that any evaluation of the effectiveness of
humanitarian response must take into account the general context of the
emergency (1). The ability of agencies to meet these standards is
influenced by both external and internal factors, some of which are beyond
their control (2). Similarly, in developing the evidence base for
humanitarian interventions, there is a need to address similar factors,
which influence the validity and comparability of data collected.
External factors like political and security conditions moderate the
ability to deliver effective aid. Chronological factors influence the
quality of response, and include the phase and dynamism of disaster
evolution (3); the timing of disaster response; and whether a steady-state
has been achieved in relief efforts. The scale of the disaster, as
determined by its geographical extent and affected population size, is
another important consideration. Intrinsic factors begin with
organisational policies, which in turn dictate the mission mandate and
objectives. The level of response is characterised by resources committed
(4), and encompass financial, human and material needs. The location of
the aid facility in relation to the “epicentre” of the disaster, displaced
populations, and other relief efforts, influence the final reach of the
programme.
In analysing or comparing humanitarian literature and data, there is
further need to consider its source. The level of reporting could range
from a single project or facility, to a relief agency, to the entire
population affected by an emergency. The population covered (and hence,
the denominator) varies with the type of reporting agency, whether this is
an inter-governmental organization, non-governmental organization,
national agency or local service. Methodology of data collection needs to
be clear, as this is often anecdotal or based on single case studies.
While above factors should be considered to make meaningful
evaluation and comparison of humanitarian responses, it is recognized that
conditions and priorities on the field seldom favour collection of
comprehensive or representative data. Such constraints limit the validity
of individual Sphere indicators as measures of effectiveness of an entire
relief programme.
References
1. Griekspoor A, Collins S. Raising standards in emergency relief:
how useful are Sphere minimum standards for humanitarian assistance? BMJ
2001;323:740-742.
2. The Sphere Project. Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in
disaster response (1st Ed). Oxford: Oxfam Publishing, 2000:6.
3. Burkholder BT, Toole MJ. Evolution of complex disasters. Lancet
1995;346:1012-1015.
4. Seet B. Levels of medical support for United Nations peacekeeping
operations. Mil Med 1999;164:451-456.
Finding a basis to compare humanitarian emergencies
EDITOR - In their analysis of the Sphere standards, Griekspoor and
Collins highlighted that any evaluation of the effectiveness of
humanitarian response must take into account the general context of the
emergency (1). The ability of agencies to meet these standards is
influenced by both external and internal factors, some of which are beyond
their control (2). Similarly, in developing the evidence base for
humanitarian interventions, there is a need to address similar factors,
which influence the validity and comparability of data collected.
External factors like political and security conditions moderate the
ability to deliver effective aid. Chronological factors influence the
quality of response, and include the phase and dynamism of disaster
evolution (3); the timing of disaster response; and whether a steady-state
has been achieved in relief efforts. The scale of the disaster, as
determined by its geographical extent and affected population size, is
another important consideration. Intrinsic factors begin with
organisational policies, which in turn dictate the mission mandate and
objectives. The level of response is characterised by resources committed
(4), and encompass financial, human and material needs. The location of
the aid facility in relation to the “epicentre” of the disaster, displaced
populations, and other relief efforts, influence the final reach of the
programme.
In analysing or comparing humanitarian literature and data, there is
further need to consider its source. The level of reporting could range
from a single project or facility, to a relief agency, to the entire
population affected by an emergency. The population covered (and hence,
the denominator) varies with the type of reporting agency, whether this is
an inter-governmental organization, non-governmental organization,
national agency or local service. Methodology of data collection needs to
be clear, as this is often anecdotal or based on single case studies.
While above factors should be considered to make meaningful
evaluation and comparison of humanitarian responses, it is recognized that
conditions and priorities on the field seldom favour collection of
comprehensive or representative data. Such constraints limit the validity
of individual Sphere indicators as measures of effectiveness of an entire
relief programme.
References
1. Griekspoor A, Collins S. Raising standards in emergency relief:
how useful are Sphere minimum standards for humanitarian assistance? BMJ
2001;323:740-742.
2. The Sphere Project. Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in
disaster response (1st Ed). Oxford: Oxfam Publishing, 2000:6.
3. Burkholder BT, Toole MJ. Evolution of complex disasters. Lancet
1995;346:1012-1015.
4. Seet B. Levels of medical support for United Nations peacekeeping
operations. Mil Med 1999;164:451-456.
Competing interests: No competing interests