Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of recommendations to improve the toolkit and its implementation

From: Integrating sexual and reproductive health into health system strengthening in humanitarian settings: a planning workshop toolkit to transition from minimum to comprehensive services in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, and Yemen

Themes/Steps

Description

Translation

Where simultaneous translation is required, organizers should plan for at least a 50% increase in workshop duration.

Inclusivity

If key stakeholders – including representatives of often marginalized and underserved populations and communities of concern – are unable to attend the workshop, every effort should be made to include them in the preparation and follow-up processes. This can be done through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys in advance of the workshop and through follow-up consultations on the work plans developed during the workshop.

Application to different humanitarian contexts

While primarily designed to support the transition from MISP to comprehensive SRH after an acute emergency, this toolkit can also be adapted and used in protracted and complex humanitarian settings to expand the range and enhance the quality of available SRH services, which are often limited to a set of minimal services that may not reach all members of the targeted population.

Data preparation

To ensure that the workshop meets its objective in producing a practical and fact-based work plan, the institution(s) responsible for the organization of the workshop should spend at least 4 to 8 weeks to map the status of the MISP implementation thoroughly. The following information would be useful: who is doing what (which MISP and comprehensive services), where (coverage), when (duration), with which resources (sustainability), and encountering which challenges and opportunities (lessons learned). With careful anticipation, facilitators will have data and information assembled and, if possible, shared with all participants at least a week in advance. This advanced information sharing would allow sufficient time for participants to reflect on the SRH situation before the workshop starts. The more detailed information that can be provided for advance review, the more effective the planning process will be during the brief two-day workshop.

Participant preparation

Participants expressed the need for more information about the workshop objectives, the WHO Health Systems Building Blocks, and what constitutes as MISP versus comprehensive SRH programming. Organizers should send a pre-reading list containing essential information and references to all participants. Participants are encouraged to take the MISP Distance Learning Module in advance of the workshop to learn more about the MISP. Such preparation would allow all the participants to start with a common ground on Day 1 of the workshop.

At the beginning of the workshop

It is essential to have all participants present from the very beginning of the workshop in order not to disturb the participatory process or interrupt the group dynamics.

Steps 2 and 3

Based on the group dynamics, organizers should consider running the reflections on needs and opportunities in small groups rather than individually to maintain participants’ attention. Each group should have a whiteboard to help map and categorize the fruits of their collective work according to the health system building blocks.

Steps 4 and 5

Instead of being divided by geographical areas, participants from one area could be mixed up with participants from other areas to enhance the opportunity to learn from different settings. Facilitators should ask participants how they would like to be grouped – by geography, expertise, interest, or another factor.