Why post-conflict health gains often do not last: a systematic review of time horizons and scale in health system reconstruction

Clicks: 5
ID: 338741
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #82 of 82 articles by views in Health policy and planning

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Health systems rebuilt after armed conflict often record early gains that do not last, yet the dominant technical frameworks, built on stable and politically neutral assumptions, describe what a health system contains at one moment and cannot explain why reconstruction endures in some places and unravels in others. This systematic review searched four electronic databases for peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2025 on health system reconstruction in post-conflict and conflict-affected settings. After independent screening, 31 studies were synthesised through best-fit framework synthesis, guided by an ecological-temporal framework that combines social-ecological systems theory with Braudel's distinction between immediate, medium-term, and long-term change. The review tested the framework's central proposition: that gains last where action at one time horizon or spatial level is matched by action at the others. Three processes recurred, with different strengths of evidence: proactive and collaborative stewardship that aligns fragmented aid with national systems; distributive justice through health care, which links health services to food security, livelihoods, and social protection; and trust repair through networked service delivery that sustains reliable frontline care across conflict lines. Each faltered at the hand-over between horizons: a ministry could not take up coordination as donor involvement grew, a coverage programme built on NGO contracts ended after nearly two decades, and health workers left where pay and protection did not follow. The framework did not anticipate that communities as well as donors would build parallel systems, or that health workers' decisions to stay or leave would decide whether gains carried forward. Most studies observed reconstruction for three years or fewer, so the evidence records little of long-term change. Restoring pre-conflict arrangements is an inadequate goal where those arrangements distributed care unequally across regions and groups. The review sets out actions matched to each time horizon for governments, donors, and humanitarian agencies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225229273 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Changmu Yan, Vincent Bernabe, Nicolo Paolo P. Ludovice
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Health policy and planning
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/heapol/czag125
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czag125
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.