Evaluates the effectiveness of roster systems in enhancing sexual and reproductive health in emergencies, indicating a necessary approach for better responsiveness.
Evidence suggests that the number, scale, and severity of emergencies exceed the international humanitarian system's existing capacity and available resources to meet humanitarian needs, especially for the health sector of which sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is an essential component. Since 1997, the Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises' Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for SRH has been the standard of care for SRH interventions in emergencies aimed to protect the health, dignity, and rights of women and girls living in humanitarian emergencies. Humanitarian response organizations, national governments, and donors increasingly recognize the importance of MISP implementation at the onset of an emergency. However, an effective humanitarian response demands rapid mobilization of resources, including the deployment of trained professionals capable of navigating complex scenarios. Roster systems are a human resource tool that maintains a diverse range of qualified professional profiles for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Recent trends indicate a shift from a global to an increasingly geographic-specific roster management and recruitment model, which we argue is vital in localizing and sustaining humanitarian response. Organizations should channel investments into further strengthening national and regional response capacity, including community-level readiness for SRH, and reconsider international standby roster models. As first responders, communities are best positioned to initiate community-based responses when integrated into all levels of health disaster risk management systems. Fostering robust partnerships between international, regional, national, sub-national, and community levels is critical to ensuring preparedness and response efforts for SRH, resilient recovery strategies, and building back better.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: