Response to the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged even robust healthcare systems in high-income countries. Syria, a country experiencing protracted conflict, has the largest internally-displaced population globally with most displaced settlements in opposition-controlled areas governed by local and international NGOs. This study aimed to explore community perspectives on challenges and potential solutions to reduce COVID-19 transmission among displaced communities in opposition-controlled Northwest Syria. We used a qualitative study design, conducting 20 interviews with displaced Syrians in opposition-controlled camps in Northwest Syria between April-May 2020 and ensuring over half our interviewees were women. We analysed data thematically. Participants described already difficult camp conditions that would be detrimental to an effective COVID-19 response, including household crowding, inadequate sewerage and waste management, insufficient and poor-quality water, and lack of cleaning supplies. Participants most frequently mentioned internet as their COVID-19 information source, followed by NGO awareness campaigns. Men had access to more accurate and comprehensive COVID-19 information than women did. Isolating (shielding) high-risk people within households did not appear feasible, but participants suggested ‘house-swapping’ approaches might work. While most participants had sufficient knowledge about COVID-19, they lacked practical tools to prevent transmission. This study is the first to explore perspectives and lived experiences of internally-displaced Syrians in the weeks prior to the COVID-19 epidemic in Northwest Syria. The challenging living conditions of internally-displaced people in Syria are further threatened by the spread of COVID-19. Tailored control measures are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19 transmission in camps.

The need to generate evidence in spaces considered insecure and inhabited by potentially extremely vulnerable individuals (e.g. conflict-affected people who may not have means to move) has led researchers to study conflict-affected settings remotely. Increased attention to remote research approaches from social scientists, due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, is sparking interest on appropriate methods and tools. Drawing on several years’ experience of remotely conducting qualitative research in Syria, we discuss challenges and approaches to conducting more inclusive, participatory, and meaningful research from a distance. The logistics, ethics, and politics of conducting research remotely are symptomatic of broader challenges in relation to the decolonisation of global and humanitarian health research. Key to the success of remote approaches is the quality of the relationships researchers need to be able to develop with study participants without face-to-face interactions and with limited engagement ‘in the field’. Particularly given overdue efforts to decolonise research institutions and methods, lead researchers should have a meaningful connection with the area in which they are conducting research. This is critical both to reduce chances that it will be extractive and exploitative and additionally for the quality of interpretation.

• Potential scope for health-system learning from cluster responses to mass displacement. • Non-health clusters can contribute to health improvements during mass displacement. • Cluster approaches are often siloed with insufficient cross-cluster learning. • Equitable power dynamics between displaced people, humanitarian actors, and governments are still needed.

There are contrasting opinions of what global health (GH) curricula should contain and limited discussion on whose voices should shape it. In GH education, those with first-hand expertise of living and working in the contexts discussed in GH classrooms are often absent when designing curricula. To address this, we developed a new model of curriculum codesign called Virtual Roundtable for Collaborative Education Design (ViRCoED). This paper describes the rationale and outputs of the ViRCoED approach in designing a new section of the Global Health Bachelor of Science (BSc) curriculum at Imperial College London, with a focus on healthcare in the Syrian conflict. The team, importantly, involved partners with lived and/or professional experience of the conflict as well as alumni of the course and educators in all stages of design and delivery through to marking and project evaluation. The project experimented with disrupting power dynamics and extending ownership of the curriculum beyond traditional faculty by codesigning and codelivering module contents together with colleagues with direct expertise and experience of the Syrian context. An authentic approach was applied to assessment design using real-time syndromic healthcare data from the Aleppo and Idlib Governorates. We discuss the challenges involved in our collaborative partnership and describe how it may have enhanced the validity of our curriculum with students engaging in a richer representation of key health issues in the conflict. We observed an enhanced self-reflexivity in the students’ approach to quantitative data and its complex interpretation. The dialogic nature of this collaborative design was also a formative process for partners and an opportunity for GH educators to reflect on their own positionality. The project aims to challenge current standards and structures in GH curriculum development and gesture towards a GH education sector eventually led by those with lived experience and expertise to significantly enhance the validity of GH education.

Introduction: COVID-19 highlighted the importance of meaningful engagement between communities and health authorities. This is particularly challenging in conflict-affected countries such as Syria, where social protection and food security needs can hinder adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccine uptake. This study explored community perspectives of COVID-19 and health authority responses across the three main areas of control in Syria, i.e. Syrian government-controlled areas (GCA), autonomous administration-controlled areas (AACA), and opposition-controlled areas (OCA). Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 22 purposively-sampled Syrians accessing health services in AACA, GCA, or OCA in 2021 to provide approximately equal representation by governance area and gender. We analysed data thematically using deductive and inductive coding. Findings: Interviewees in all areas described how their fears of COVID-19 and willingness to adhere to NPIs decreased as their local COVID-19 epidemics progressed and NPIs disrupted access to household essentials such as work and food. Community-level responses were minimal and ad hoc, so most people focused on personal or household protective efforts and many mentioned relying on their faith for comfort. Misinformation and vaccine hesitancy were common in all areas, linked to lack of transparency from and mistrust of local health authorities and information sources. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased health actors’ need to engage with communities to control disease spread, yet most NPIs implemented in Syria were inappropriate and adherence decreased as the pandemic progressed. This was exemplified by lockdowns and requirements to self-isolate, despite precarious reliance on daily wages, no subsidies for lost income, individual self-reliance, and mistrust/weak communication between communities and health authorities. We found minimal community engagement efforts, consisting entirely of informing with no efforts to consult, involve, collaborate, or empower. This contributed to failures of health actors to contextualise interventions in ways that respected community understandings and needs.

Delivering vaccines in humanitarian response requires rigourous and continuous analysis of evidence. This systematic review mapped the normative landscape of vaccination guidance on vaccine-preventable diseases in crisis-affected settings. Guidance published between 2000 and 2022 was searched for, in English and French, on websites of humanitarian actors, Google, and Bing. Peer-reviewed database searches were performed in Global Health and Embase. Reference lists of all included documents were screened. We disseminated an online survey to professionals working in vaccination delivery in humanitarian contexts. There was a total of 48 eligible guidance documents, including technical guidance (n = 17), descriptive guidance (n = 16), operational guidance (n = 11), evidence reviews (n = 3), and ethical guidance (n = 1). Most were World Health Organization documents (n = 21) targeting children under 5 years of age. Critical appraisal revealed insufficient inclusion of affected populations and limited rigour in guideline development. We found limited information on vaccines including, yellow fever, cholera, meningococcal, hepatitis A, and varicella, as well as human papilloma virus (HPV). There is a plethora of vaccination guidance for vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian contexts. However, gaps remain in the critical and systematic inclusion of evidence, inclusion of the concept of “zero-dose” children and affected populations, ethical guidance, and specific recommendations for HPV and non-universally recommended vaccines, which must be addressed.