IAWG Global Evaluation: Literature Review Global Evaluation Steering Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

Methodology Overarching question: what is the evidence regarding RH services provided in humanitarian settings and what is the quality of that evidence? –Is the level of RH services being provided going beyond the basics to provide the recommended standard of care? –Which RH technical services are better covered than others? –How well are the services being implemented? –Are services/programs being evaluated?

Recommended standard of care for each RH technical area EmOC: all signal functions available 24/7 FP: all methods including long-acting and permanent HIV: ARVs, PMTCT with triple therapy GBV: clinical care including EC, PEP, STI prophylaxis and treatment of injuries, referral to psychosocial care

Inclusion criteriaExclusion criteria Topic Clinical reproductive health services - EmOC, FP, HIV and/or GBV – (with enough detail to determine if standards are met) in humanitarian crises Other RH topics (e.g., FGC, reproductive cancers, mental health, non-clinical GBV programs) Types of Studies/Data Describe types of services provided or that were available Prevalence or program descriptions that did not describe the specific services available Settings Humanitarian crises in conflict, post- conflict or natural disaster settings in lower or middle income countries Locations that were not affected by the conflict or natural disaster; that are quite long post-conflict and the program is more development than post-conflict; settings in higher income countries Types of publications Research articles or program descriptions in peer-reviewed journals Letters, editorials, commentaries; Grey literature LanguageEnglish Study titles and abstracts in languages other than English Publication date January 2002 – December 2013Studies published before 2002 and after 2013.

No. of records identified through database searching: Ovid Medline + PubMed +PopLine+ Jstor (duplicates removed) = 4,797 No. of records excluded based on a review of the title or abstract: 4,190 No. of records excluded based on the abstract or full-text review as needed: 291 No. of records for abstract or full-text review: 333 No. of studies included in qualitative synthesis: 41 which describe 33 different programs or settings

Preliminary results Which RH technical services are better covered than others? –EmOC/safe motherhood: 9 –FP: 7 –HIV/STI: 14 –GBV: 6 –General RH: 1 (FP and ANC mentioned)

Types of studies Facility assessment or other general assessments not linked to specific programs or baseline only: 11 Pre/post evaluation: 5 Cross-sectional studies: 4 Cohort study: 1 Program data: 8 Qualitative methods: 4 16 not linked to programs (or present only baseline data) 20 linked to programs