Humanitarian assistance and accountability: what are we really talking about?

BACKGROUND: In the past two decades, there has been a worldwide increase in the number of disasters, as well as the number of people affected, along with the number of foreign medical teams (FMTs) deployed to provide assistance. However, in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, multiple reports and anecdotes questioned the actual, positive contribution of such FMTs and even the intentions behind these aid efforts. This brought on a renewed interest in the humanitarian community towards accountability. Between 2000 and 2012, the number of "Quality and Accountability" initiatives and instruments more than tripled from 42 to 147. Yet, to date, there is no single accepted definition of accountability in the humanitarian context. AIM: The aim of this report was to explore and assess how accountability in the humanitarian context is used and/or defined in the literature. METHODS: The electronic database PubMed and a predefined list of grey literature comprising 46 organizations were searched for articles that discussed or provided a definition of accountability in the humanitarian context. The definitions found in these articles were analyzed qualitatively using a framework analysis method based on principles of grounded theory as well as using a summative content analysis method. RESULTS: A total of 85 articles were reviewed in-depth. Fifteen organizations had formal definitions of accountability or explained what it meant to them. Accountability was generally seen in two paradigms: as a "process" or as a "goal." A total of 16 different concepts were identified amongst the definitions. Accountability to aid recipients had four main themes: empowering aid recipients, being in an optimal position to do the greatest good, meeting expectations, and being liable. The concepts of "enforcement/enforceability" under the last theme of "being liable" received the least mention. CONCLUSION: The concept of accountability is defined poorly in many humanitarian organizations. Humanitarian providers often refer to different concepts when talking about accountability in general. The lack of a common understanding is contributed by the semantic and practical complexities of the term. The lack of emphasis on "enforcement/enforceability" is noteworthy. Other aspects of accountability, such as its "measurability" and by whom, similarly lack a common understanding and community-wide consensus. To what extent these vague definitions of accountability affect agencies' work in the field remains to be documented.

Facilitators and Barriers to Post-partum Diabetes Screening Among Mothers With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus-A Qualitative Study From Singapore.

Introduction: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) affects one in six births worldwide. Mothers with GDM have an increased risk of developing post-partum Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). However, their uptake of post-partum diabetes screening is suboptimal, including those in Singapore. Literature reports that the patient-doctor relationship, mothers' concerns about diabetes, and family-related practicalities are key factors influencing the uptake of such screening. However, we postulate additional factors related to local society, healthcare system, and policies in influencing post-partum diabetes screening among mothers with GDM. Aim: The qualitative research study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers to post-partum diabetes screening among mothers with GDM in an Asian community. Methods: In-depth interviews were carried out on mothers with GDM at a public primary care clinic in Singapore. Mothers were recruited from those who brought their child for vaccination appointments and their informed consent was obtained. Both mothers who completed post-partum diabetes screening within 12 weeks after childbirth and those who did not were purposively recruited. The social ecological model (SEM) provides the theoretical framework to identify facilitators and barriers at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and policy levels. Results: Twenty multi-ethnic Asian mothers with GDM were interviewed. At the individual and interpersonal level, self-perceived risk of developing T2DM, understanding the need for screening and the benefits of early diagnosis, availability of confinement nanny in Chinese family, alternate caregivers, emotional, and peer support facilitated post-partum diabetes screening. Barriers included fear of the diagnosis and its consequences, preference for personal attention and care to child, failure to find trusted caregiver, competing priorities, and unpleasant experiences with the oral glucose tolerance test. At the organizational and public policy level, bundling of scheduled appointments, and standardization of procedure eased screening but uptake was hindered by inconvenient testing locations, variable post-partum care practices and advice in the recommendations for diabetes screening. Conclusion: Based on the SEM, facilitators and barriers towards post-partum diabetes screening exist at multiple levels, with some contextualized to local factors. Interventions to improve its uptake should be multi-pronged, targeting not only at personal but also familial, health system, and policy factors to ensure higher level of success.