Vaccination governance in protracted conflict settings: the case of northwest Syria.

BACKGROUND: Effective vaccination governance in conflict-affected regions poses unique challenges. This study evaluates the governance of vaccination programs in northwest Syria, focusing on effectiveness, efficiency, inclusiveness, data availability, vision, transparency, accountability, and sustainability. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, and adapting Siddiqi's framework for health governance, data were collected through 14 key informant interviews (KIIs), a validating workshop, and ethnographic observations. Findings were triangulated to provide a comprehensive understanding of vaccination governance. RESULTS: The study highlights innovative approaches used to navigate the complex health governance landscape to deliver vaccination interventions, which strengthened sub-national vaccination structures such as The Syria Immunisation Group (SIG). The analysis revealed several key themes. Effectiveness and efficiency were demonstrated through cold-chain reliability and extensive outreach activities, though formal reports lacked detailed analysis of vaccine losses and linkage between disease outbreak data and coverage statistics. Key informants and workshop participants rated the vaccination strategy positively but identified inefficiencies due to irregular funding and bureaucracy. Inclusiveness and data availability were prioritised, with outreach activities targeting vulnerable groups. However, significant gaps in demographic data and reliance on paper-based systems hindered comprehensive coverage analysis. Digitalisation efforts were noted but require further support. The SIG demonstrated a clear strategic vision supported by international organizations such as the World Health Organization, yet limited partner participation in strategic planning raised concerns about broader ownership and engagement. While the SIG was perceived as approachable, the lack of public documentation and financial disclosure limited transparency. Internal information sharing was prevalent, but public communication strategies were insufficient. Accountability and sustainability faced challenges due to a decentralized structure and reliance on diverse donors. Despite stabilizing factors such as decentralization and financial continuity, fragmented oversight and reliance on donor funding remained significant concerns. DISCUSSION: The study highlights the complexities of vaccination governance in conflict-affected areas. Comparisons with other conflict zones underscore the importance of local organisations and international support. The SIG's role is pivotal, but its legitimacy, transparency, and inclusivity require improvement. The potential transition to early recovery in Syria poses additional challenges to SIG's sustainability and integration into national programs. CONCLUSION: The governance of vaccination in northwest Syria is multifaceted, involving multiple stakeholders and lacking a legitimate government. Enhancing transparency, local ownership, and participatory decision-making are crucial for improving governance. The role of international bodies is essential, emphasising the need for structured feedback mechanisms and transparent monitoring processes to ensure the program's success and sustainability.

Cross-border strategies for access to healthcare in violent conflict - A scoping review.

Background: The geographical reconfiguration of healthcare systems in times of violent conflict is increasingly being recognised in academic literature. This includes conflict-induced, cross-border travel for medical treatment. Yet the conceptual approach to this healthcare-seeking behaviour, by a population here referred to as cross-border population, remains poorly understood. This scoping review identifies academic literature on cross-border populations to map the current approach to cross-border populations and to propose a research agenda. Methods: The study used a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review methodology. We included articles on conflicts between 1980 and 2019. Results: A total of 53 articles met the inclusion criteria. From these articles, we distinguished four types of studies on cross-border healthcare: Direct analysis, implicit analysis, clinical research, and identification. The 45 articles belonging to the first three categories were then searched for themes specifically relevant to healthcare for cross-border populations and linked with sub-themes such as border crossing time and the types of healthcare available. These themes were structured into three main areas: access to care; quality of care; and governance of care. Our analysis then describes the available knowledge, documented practices, and challenges of cross-border healthcare specifically in conflict settings. Conclusions: A better understanding of cross-border healthcare systems is required to inform local practices and develop related regional and international policies. While the reviewed literature provides some highlights on various practices of cross-border healthcare, there are many gaps in available knowledge of this topic. To address these gaps, our study proposes a research framework outlining key themes and research questions to be investigated by signposting where major research and operational gaps remain. This facilitates well-directed future work on cross-border therapeutic geographies in the context of armed conflict and furthers understanding of a hitherto largely ignored area of the international healthcare system.