Inclusion of people with disability and older people in humanitarian response

Added July 23, 2020

Citation: Robinson. A, Marella. M, Logam. L (2020) ‘Gap Analysis: the Inclusion of People with Disability and Older People in Humanitarian Response’. Elrha: London.

The Gap Analysis found that the evidence on the inclusion of people with disability and older people in humanitarian response is highly diverse in terms of research topics, approach, quality and scope, but that there is little depth of quality evidence. Despite growing awareness of the importance of inclusive humanitarian response, there is limited evidence that people with disability and older people are being included.

This initial report summarises the findings from academic and grey literature reviews, which drew on systematic review methods. Only articles published in English between the start of January 2010 and the end of January 2020 were included. 337 full text articles were screened and 74 were included in the final mapping. A thematic analysis was completed to organise and map the articles. Both disability and older age articles were mapped across two sets of categories. The first set of categories is based on the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities (HIS). The second set of categories is based on humanitarian sectors or areas of work, such as shelter; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); or health.  Most of the literature notes an absence of inclusive interventions and little critical analysis of the use and effectiveness of existing inclusive approaches. The evidence highlights a need to look beyond general approaches to improving access towards considering what institutional or structural changes may be required across the humanitarian system.


Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on humanitarian response but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made on the basis of this summary alone.