Effectiveness of Mechanisms and Models of Coordination between Organizations, Agencies and Bodies Providing or Financing Health Services in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Effective coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises is required to ensure efficiency of services, avoid duplication, and improve equity. The objective of this review was to assess how, during and after humanitarian crises, different mechanisms and models of coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services compare in terms of access to health services and health outcomes. METHODS: We registered a protocol for this review in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews under number PROSPERO2014:CRD42014009267. Eligible studies included randomized and nonrandomized designs, process evaluations and qualitative methods. We electronically searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the WHO Global Health Library and websites of relevant organizations. We followed standard systematic review methodology for the selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 14,309 identified citations from databases and organizations' websites, we identified four eligible studies. Two studies used mixed-methods, one used quantitative methods, and one used qualitative methods. The available evidence suggests that information coordination between bodies providing health services in humanitarian crises settings may be effective in improving health systems inputs. There is additional evidence suggesting that management/directive coordination such as the cluster model may improve health system inputs in addition to access to health services. None of the included studies assessed coordination through common representation and framework coordination. The evidence was judged to be of very low quality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides evidence of possible effectiveness of information coordination and management/directive coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises. Our findings can inform the research agenda and highlight the need for improving conduct and reporting of research in this field

Phylogeny in Aid of the Present and Novel Microbial Lineages: Diversity in Bacillus

Bacillus represents microbes of high economic, medical and biodefense importance. Bacillus strain identification based on 16S rRNA sequence analyses is invariably limited to species level. Secondly, certain discrepancies exist in the segregation of Bacillus subtilis strains. In the RDP/NCBI databases, out of a total of 2611 individual 16S rDNA sequences belonging to the 175 different species of the genus Bacillus, only 1586 have been identified up to species level. 16S rRNA sequences of Bacillus anthracis (153 strains), B. cereus (211 strains), B. thuringiensis (108 strains), B. subtilis (271 strains), B. licheniformis (131 strains), B. pumilus (83 strains), B. megaterium (47 strains), B. sphaericus (42 strains), B. clausii (39 strains) and B. halodurans (36 strains) were considered for generating species-specific framework and probes as tools for their rapid identification. Phylogenetic segregation of 1121, 16S rDNA sequences of 10 different Bacillus species in to 89 clusters enabled us to develop a phylogenetic frame work of 34 representative sequences. Using this phylogenetic framework, 305 out of 1025, 16S rDNA sequences presently classified as Bacillus sp. could be identified up to species level. This identification was supported by 20 to 30 nucleotides long signature sequences and in silico restriction enzyme analysis specific to the 10 Bacillus species. This integrated approach resulted in identifying around 30% of Bacillus sp. up to species level and revealed that B. subtilis strains can be segregated into two phylogenetically distinct groups, such that one of them may be renamed