↓ Skip to main content

Critical assessment of refugees’ needs in post-emergency context: the case of Malian war refugees settled in Northern Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Critical assessment of refugees’ needs in post-emergency context: the case of Malian war refugees settled in Northern Burkina Faso
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12914-018-0176-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Idrissa Beogo, Amadou Darboe, A. Oluwafunmilade Adesanya, Bomar Mendez Rojas

Abstract

Empirically assessing the needs of refugees in camps is critical to the improvement of existing policies and programs that aim at enhancing their well-being. By neglecting the needs of refugees, interventions may fail to capture the complex patterns of refugees' daily lives within camps. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the needs of encamped Malian refugees in Northern Burkina Faso following the 2012-armed conflict. In addition to assessing the needs of Malian refugees, the study aimed to critically assess from an upstream perspective the degree of their involvement in policies and practices that are targeted towards improving their livelihood. We took an "upstream" view on the lives of Malian refugees to identify their unmet needs. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to collect data from various media sources, including data aggregated from the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The most populous refugee camp (Mentao) was visited in September 2012 and in-depth group discussion and interviews were conducted with key informants, including nine camp representatives and four officials from the central and decentralized administrations. Media canvass combined with the UNHCR level 2 census revealed a flawed headcount of refugees, which was 205.4% higher than the real number in Burkina Faso. Although refugees live harmoniously with the natives and their security has been assured, they strongly complained about the number of unused food items distributed. Camps were distributed among humanitarian organizations leading to differential advantage and resources from one camp to another. Additionally, idleness, lack of classrooms facilities for pre-school children and lack of continuous healthcare services were major concerns raised. Further, refugees expressed limited involvement in the planning and implementation of programs that are related to their welfare. This study revealed that refugees' voices were not taken into consideration in making tailor-made programs. This calls for more comprehensive surge capacity to deal with refugees' basic needs. Further, a strong leadership from hoststate should be encouraged to offer equal opportunities to refugees regardless of their camps. Finally, an innovative strategy is needed to build a reliable database that could enhance the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 45 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,075,407
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,453
of 17,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,561
of 351,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#40
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.