Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Health Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play a significant role to provide
humanitarian services in natural hazards. However, few studies have been conducted on the
coordination models of NGOs. Using these models, NGOs are expected to act along with other
agencies to provide unified and effective humanitarian’s services. The present study aimed to identify
the published coordination models of NGOs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted from October to November
2017. Electronic source, including PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest Research Library, and
Scopus were examined. All English articles published in journals or presented at conferences were
included in the study. Nonjournal and irrelevant articles were excluded from the study. Furthermore,
papers which were not available as a full text and published in languages other than English were
also excluded. Thematic analysis technique was used to analyze the articles.
RESULTS: From 871 documents which captured in initial search, only 7 studies identified as eligible
articles for extract 8 coordination models of NGOs in disasters and emergencies including: (1) Sphere
project, (2) Cluster approach, (3) Code of conduct, (4) Decentralized approach, (5) National Disaster
Response Framework, (6) Conceptual integrated NGO collaboration framework for community
postdisaster reconstruction, (7) Model of temporal coordination of disaster response activities,
and (8) Collabit application.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified eight proposed coordination models that have
been implemented internationally, nationally, and locally in natural hazards. However, these models
are not enough, and there are some gaps between what is it and what should be. More effective and
efficient models and strategies are needed to increase the effectiveness of coordination activities
at all levels of community. These results should serve policy‑makers and administrators of NGOs
delivering humanitarian services during and postnatural hazards to choose from a number of options
on how to coordinate their efforts.
Keywords
experts’ desk and affected fields of Iran. J Emerg Manag
2017;15:77‑80.
2. Sohrabizadeh S, Tourani PhD S, Khankeh HR. Women and health
consequences of natural disasters: Challenge or opportunity?
Women Health 2016;56:977‑93.
3. Lu Y, Xu J. NGO collaboration in community post‑disaster
reconstruction: Field research following the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake in China. Disasters 2015;39:258‑78.
4. Murdie A. Scrambling for contact: The determinants of
inter‑NGO cooperation in non‑western countries. Rev Int Organ
2014;9:309‑31.
5. Bradt DA, Drummond CM. From complex emergencies
to terrorism – New tools for health‑sector coordination in
conflict‑associated disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med 2003;18:263‑71.
6. Lotfi T, Bou‑Karroum L, Darzi A, Hajjar R, El Rahyel A, El Eid J,
et al. Coordinating the provision of health services in humanitarian
crises: A systematic review of suggested models. PLoS Curr
2016;8. pii: ecurrents.dis. 95e78d5a93bbf99fca68be64826575fa.
7. Abraham E. What factors impact the effectiveness of international
non governmental organizations (INGOs) in Ethiopia.PHD
dissertation. Las Vagas: University of Nevada; 2013.
8. Dolinskaya IS, Shi Z, Smilowitz KR, Ross M. Decentralized Approaches to Logistics Coordination in Humanitarian Relief.
in 61st Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial
Engineers. Reno, NV: Institute of Industrial Engineers; 2011.
9. Stephenson M Jr. Making humanitarian relief networks more
effective: Operational coordination, trust and sense making.
Disasters 2005;29:337‑50.
10. Rey F. The Complex Nature of Actors in Humanitarian Action and
the Challenge of Coordination In Reflections on Humanitarian
Action. London: Pluto Press; 1999.
11. Nabi PG. Coordinating post‑disaster humanitarian response:
Lessons from the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, India. Dev Pract
2014;24:975‑88.
12. Franke J, Charoy F, Ulmer C. A Model for Temporal Coordination
of Disaster Response Activities. Proceedings of the 7th International
ISCRAM Conference. Seattle, USA, May 2010.
13. Seyedin SH, Aflatoonian MR, Ryan J. Adverse impact of
international NGOs during and after the bam earthquake:
Health system’s consumers’ points of view. Am J Disaster Med
2009;4:173‑9.
14. Hilhorst D. Dead letter or living document? Ten years of the code
of conduct for disaster relief. Disasters 2005;29:351‑69.
15. Ainuddin S, Aldrich DP, Routray JK, Ainuddin S, Achkazai A.
The need for local involvement: Decentralization of disaster
management institutions in Baluchistan, Pakistan. Int J Disaster
Risk Reduct 2013;6:50‑8.
16. Albahari A, Schultz CH. A qualitative analysis of the spontaneous
volunteer response to the 2013 sudan floods: Changing the
paradigm. Prehosp Disaster Med 2017;32:240‑8.
17. de Lanerolle TR, Anderson W, De Fabbia Kane S, Fox Epstein E,
Gochev D, Morelli R. Development of a Virtual Dashboard for
Event Coordination Between Multiple Groups. Proceedings of
the 7th International ISCRAM Conference. Seattle, USA, May
2010.
18. Dufour C, Geoffroy V, Maury H, Grünewald F. Rights, standards
and quality in a complex humanitarian space: Is sphere the right
tool? Disasters 2004;28:124‑41.
19. Stobbaerts E, Martin S, Derderian K. Integration and UN
humanitarian reforms. Forced Migr Rev 2007;29:18‑20.
20. Stumpenhorst M, Stumpenhorst R, Razum O. The un OCHA
cluster approach: Gaps between theory and practice. J Public
Health 2011;19:587‑92.
21. Humphries V. Improving humanitarian coordination: Common
challenges and lessons learned from the cluster approach. The
Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. 2013 Apr 30;30.
)