Prehospital & Disaster Medicine
Volume 30 – Issue 03 – June 2015
https://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=PDM&tab=currentissue

.
Editorial
Disastrous Events and Political Failures
Jeffrey Levett
National School of Public Health, Department of Health Service Management, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Response to the Ebola crisis (ongoing event) has been less than efficient. It has been monitored less than adequately by the international community and has been coordinated poorly in the USA. The event is used as a platform to examine deficiencies in public health infrastructure, the limits of its political and financial support, and how political outcomes can be affected. The need to tease out the political determinants implicit in policy failure and disaster management is argued in this Editorial. Failures mentioned include in the Balkans and in Greece with ongoing austerity. Comments on the real heroes of Ebola on the ground in Africa and the need for a charismatic role for political leaders in public health are also included.

.
Original Research
Humanitarian Assistance and Accountability: What Are We Really Talking About?
Y.S. Andrew Tana1 c1 and Johan von Schreeba2
a1 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
a2 Centre for Research on Health Care in Disasters, Health Systems and Policy, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
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.

.
Comprehensive Review
Child Debriefing: A Review of the Evidence Base
Betty Pfefferbauma1 c1, Anne K. Jacobsa1, Pascal Nitiémaa1 and George S. Everly Jr.a2a3
a1 Terrorism and Disaster Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
a2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland USA
a3 Department of Psychology, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland USA
Abstract
Introduction
Debriefing, a controversial crisis intervention delivered in the early aftermath of a disaster, has not been well evaluated for use with children and adolescents. This report constitutes a review of the child debriefing evidence base.
Methods
A systematic search of selected bibliographic databases (EBM Reviews, EMBASE, ERIC, Medline, Ovid, PILOTS, PubMed, and PsycINFO) was conducted in the spring of 2014 using search terms related to psychological debriefing. The search was limited to English language sources and studies of youth, aged 0 to 18 years. No time limit was placed on date of publication. The search yielded 713 references. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to select publications describing scientific studies and clinical reports. Reference sections of these publications, and of other literature known to the authors that was not generated by the search, were used to locate additional materials. Review of these materials generated 187 publications for more thorough examination; this assessment yielded a total of 91 references on debriefing in children and adolescents. Only 15 publications on debriefing in children and adolescents described empirical studies. Due to a lack of statistical analysis of effectiveness data with youth, and some articles describing the same study, only seven empirical studies described in nine papers were identified for analysis for this review. These studies were evaluated using criteria for assessment of methodological rigor in debriefing studies.
Results
Children and adolescents included in the seven empirical debriefing studies were survivors of motor-vehicle accidents, a maritime disaster, hostage taking, war, or peer suicides. The nine papers describing the seven studies were characterized by inconsistency in describing the interventions and populations and by a lack of information on intervention fidelity. Few of the studies used randomized design or blinded assessment. The results described in the reviewed studies were mixed in regard to debriefing’s effect on posttraumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and other outcomes. Even in studies in which debriefing appeared promising, the research was compromised by potentially confounding interventions.
Conclusion
The results highlight the small empirical evidence base for drawing conclusions about the use of debriefing with children and adolescents, and they call for further dialogue regarding challenges in evaluating debriefing and other crisis interventions in children.