Objectives: To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector.

Design: Systematic mapping and in-depth review.

Data sources: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index)

Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019.

Data extraction and synthesis: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas.

Results: A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs.

Conclusions: Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.

Objective: To identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research and review articles in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

Methods: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review team to identify those that met our criteria of original research or review articles in the domains of Disaster and Humanitarian Response, Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings, and Emergency Medicine Development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization.

Results: The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year’s search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted original research, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings again constituted most of the articles in this year’s review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques.

Conclusions: The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to Disaster and Humanitarian Response. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Objective: To identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research and review articles in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

Methods: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review team to identify those that met our criteria of original research or review articles in the domains of Disaster and Humanitarian Response, Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings, and Emergency Medicine Development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization.

Results: The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year’s search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted original research, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings again constituted most of the articles in this year’s review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques.

Conclusions: The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to Disaster and Humanitarian Response. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Emergency care systems provide timely and relevant care to the acutely ill and injured. Published commentaries have characterised deficiencies in the Nigerian emergency care system and offered potential solutions but have not included the perspectives of the Nigerian public. A more inclusive approach that includes feedback from the public may help improve the Nigerian emergency care system through better understanding of the needs, values and expectations of the community.

The participants in this study identified shortcomings and opportunities to improve prehospital care, hospital care and health system governance. The results of this study may help healthcare professionals, policy makers and community leaders identify gaps in the emergency care system and offer solutions in harmony with the needs, values and expectations of the community. If successful, these community-informed interventions may serve as a model to improve emergency care systems throughout Africa.