Health research in the Syrian conflict: opportunities for equitable and multidisciplinary collaboration.

There is considerable global momentum from Syrian researchers, policy makers and diaspora to address health, security and development challenges posed by almost a decade of armed conflict and complex geopolitics that has resulted in different areas of political control. However, research funders have been so far reluctant to invest in large-scale research programmes in severely conflict-affected areas such as northern Syria. This paper presents examples of collaborations and programmes that could change this through equitable partnerships between academic and operational humanitarian organizations involving local Syrian researchers-a tremendous way forward to capitalize and accelerate this global momentum. Several academic and humanitarian organizations have initiated collaborations to build new networks and partnerships for better research and policy engagement in Syria. The networks conducted two consecutive annual conferences in 2019 and 2020. Key messages from these conference include: (1) equitable partnerships between organizations and individual researchers must form the basis of conducting better research; (2) ensuring the inclusion of local Syrian researchers is crucial in the development of any viable partnership; (3) capacity strengthening in health research is urgently needed in Syria's current phase of active conflict to inform, develop and implement strengthened and sustainable health systems in the post-conflict phase.

Infection prevention and control in conflict-affected areas in northeast Syria: A cross-sectional study.

Objectives: In northeastern Syria (NES), the adherence of health care facilities to infection prevention and control (IPC) standards remains underexplored. This study evaluates the IPC performance of various health facilities against World Health Organization (WHO) benchmarks using the IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) and the Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 33 health care facilities, including primary (PHC), secondary (SHC), and tertiary health care centres (THC). Data were collected via on-site evaluations using the IPCAF and HHSAF tools. Results: A significant 91% of facilities did not meet half of the WHO IPC minimum requirements. Specifically, 57% of PHCs met 26-50% of the standards, while none exceeded 75%. Among SHCs, 71% met 26-50% of the standards, while 44% of THCs fell within this range. Notably, 81.8% of facilities were classified as 'inadequate' per the IPCAF, with none achieving 'intermediate' or 'advanced' levels. The HHSAF results were similarly concerning, with 34.4% deemed 'inadequate' and 65.6% at the 'basic' level. A weak positive correlation (0.137) was found between IPCAF and HHSAF scores. Conclusions: NES health care facilities demonstrate substantial deficiencies in IPC compliance, with critical gaps in IPC programmes, health care-associated infection surveillance, and training. Urgent interventions are required to enhance IPC practices, leveraging local strengths and fostering international collaborations to improve patient safety and health care quality in the region.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis and co-morbid major depressive disorder: A systematic review with burden estimates.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) associated with chronic neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) has been identified as a significant and overlooked contributor to overall disease burden. Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is one of the most prevalent and stigmatising NTDs, with an incidence of around 1 million new cases of active CL infection annually. However, the characteristic residual scarring (inactive CL) following almost all cases of active CL has only recently been recognised as part of the CL disease spectrum due to its lasting psychosocial impact. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a multi-language systematic review of the psychosocial impact of active and inactive CL. We estimated inactive CL (iCL) prevalence for the first time using reported WHO active CL (aCL) incidence data that were adjusted for life expectancy and underreporting. We then quantified the disability (YLD) burden of co-morbid MDD in CL using MDD disability weights at three severity levels. Overall, we identified 29 studies of CL psychological impact from 5 WHO regions, representing 11 of the 50 highest burden countries for CL. We conservatively calculated the disability burden of co-morbid MDD in CL to be 1.9 million YLDs, which equalled the overall (DALY) disease burden (assuming no excess mortality in depressed CL patients). Thus, upon inclusion of co-morbid MDD alone in both active and inactive CL, the DALY burden was seven times higher than the latest 2016 Global Burden of Disease study estimates, which notably omitted both psychological impact and inactive CL. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to include co-morbid MDD and the lasting sequelae of chronic NTDs, as exemplified by CL, leads to large underestimates of overall disease burden.