Care for survivors when an emergency ends - Editorials

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel

The editorial argues that humanitarian attention fades after emergencies, leaving survivors without long-term physical, psychological, and social support. It describes how post-crisis recovery is prolonged, shaped by differing trajectories, and illustrates failures across Ebola, Cyclone Idai, post-flood Pakistan, and the Türkiye–Syrian Arab Republic earthquakes. The piece attributes gaps to misaligned global response structures, absent mandates and budgets for continuity of care, and weak national prioritization and accountability. It calls for transition plans, dedicated funding, and sustained national health system investment supported by international partners.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Care for survivors when an emergency ends

Why attention fades after emergencies

Systems and ethical failures in post-crisis care

Calls for national planning and sustained funding

Examples of workable survivorship programs

Editorials Care for survivors when an emergency ends Arham Kamila & Abdur Rafay Farooqa When a humanitarian crisis occurs, organizations, private individuals and the media mobilize. However, once the emergency passes, attention fades and survivors are often forgotten. Global health responses may save lives during crises but frequently fail to support survivors afterwards. Survivorship entails living through the acute emergency but experiencing physical, psychological or social consequences in the aftermath. Recovery is the longer process of restoring or adapting health and functioning to make life liveable with dignity. These trajectories differ depending on the crisis, but in all cases, the emergency phase is only the beginning. For example, following the 2013–2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak, over 17 000 individuals survived the viral infection but subsequently experienced chronic sequelae, including arthralgia, uveitis, memory loss and severe psychological trauma. Some survivors were stigmatized, deserted by their communities and offered limited organized care.1 In Mozambique, months after Cyclone Idai in 2019, maternal mortality increased as health infrastructure remained damaged and follow-up care was limited.2 Post-crisis reports highlighted these challenges, but long-term survivor programmes remained scarce. Similarly, after the 2022 floods in Pakistan, millions were displaced and faced heightened risks of malaria, diarrhoea and respiratory disease. When emergency shelters shut down, many families were left without reliable health care or secure housing.3,4 The 2023 Türkiye–Syrian Arab Republic earthquakes left thousands of survivors with amputations and spinal cord injuries. While national authorities and international humanitarian organizations prioritized trauma care, longer-term rehabilitation, prosthetic services and disability inclusion were often unfunded or implemented in fragmented efforts.5 The way the global health community structures crisis response partly contributes to this weakness. Donor finance and operational planning focus on preventing mortality, tracking case numbers and demonstrating rapid impact. Typically, no mandate and no budget exist for long-term health surveillance or continuity of care. Therefore, after the emergency phase, survivors often have no access to mental health services, physical rehabilitation or treatment for chronic conditions.6 However, considering this issue solely from an international perspective gives an incomplete picture. Continuity of postdisaster care is also a national responsibility. For instance, the 2023 Türkiye–Syrian Arab Republic earthquake revealed gaps in longterm rehabilitation and disability-inclusive recovery, even in Türkiye. These gaps suggest that the barrier is not simply a lack of donor funding, but one of national prioritization, planning and accountability.7 The Syrian Arab Republic faced compounded constraints, sanctions and security risks that complicated sustained assistance and limited what both national systems and external responders could realistically deliver over time.8 Even in settings with available resources, post-disaster care can be challenging. For example, after the 2015 Nepal earthquake, trained clinicians were reportedly unwilling to remain in remote affected areas, showing how health workforce distribution, incentives and governance can derail recovery even when emergency response is well funded.9 These shortcomings demonstrate that the problem is both a systems failure and an ethical issue. Health equity is breached when care is withheld from those who remain most in need after survival. Disaster survivors are frequently from disadvantaged groups such as rural residents, displaced persons, women and people with disabilities, and post-crisis abandonment deepens those disadvantages. We call for the formal inclusion of survivorship into national plans for emergency preparedness, response and recovery, with suppo

FAQs

Why do survivors often receive inadequate support after an emergency ends?

Global and donor planning typically targets preventing mortality and rapid impact, without mandates or budgets for long-term surveillance and continuity of care, so survivors may lack access to rehabilitation, chronic treatment, and mental health services.

What types of harm can persist for disaster survivors after surviving the acute phase?

Survivorship can involve physical, psychological, and social consequences, including chronic sequelae, stigma and abandonment, and injuries that require prolonged rehabilitation and disability-inclusive support.

What changes does the editorial call for to improve long-term survivor care?

It calls for formal inclusion of survivorship in national emergency preparedness, response, and recovery plans, including transparent transition plans to recovery care, dedicated funding for rehabilitation and posttraumatic mental health, and health-system investments to sustain support beyond the news cycle.

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel