Skip to main content

Sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian settings: a matter of life and death


It is estimated that approximately 4.3 million sexually active persons worldwide will receive poor and/or limited access to Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) services in their lifetime. Globally, approximately 200 million women and girls still endure female genital cutting, 33,000 child marriages occur daily, and a myriad of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) agenda gaps continue to remain unaddressed. These gaps are particularly pertinent for women and girls in humanitarian settings where SRH conditions including gender-based violence, unsafe abortions, and poor obstetric care are among the leading causes of female morbidity and mortality. Notably, the past decade has featured a record high number of forcibly displaced persons globally since World War II and has led to over 160 million persons requiring humanitarian aid globally, 32 million of whom are women and girls of reproductive age. Inadequate SRH service delivery continues to persist in humanitarian settings, with basic services insufficient or inaccessible, putting women and girls at higher risk for increased morbidity and mortality. This record number of displaced persons and the continued gaps that remain unaddressed pertaining to SRH in humanitarian settings require renewed urgency to create upstream solutions to this complex issue. This commentary discusses the gaps in the holistic management of SRH in humanitarian settings, explores why these gaps persist, and addresses the unique cultural, environmental, and political conditions which contribute to continued SRH service delivery inadequacies and increased morbidity and mortality for women and girls.


It is estimated that about 4.3 million sexually active persons worldwide will receive poor and/or limited access to Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) services in their lifetime [1]. Up until the end of June 2020, 200 million women and girls globally still endured female genital cutting along with the severe lifelong physical and psychological consequences that accompany this practice [2]. In addition, approximately 33,000 child marriages still occur daily, 25 million unsafe abortions occur annually, and a host of other unresolved Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) agenda gaps remain unaddressed [1, 2]. These gaps are even greater among women and girls in humanitarian settings where SRH conditions like gender-based violence, unsafe abortions, and poor obstetric care are among the leading causes of female morbidity and mortality [3,4,5]. Indeed, women and girls in humanitarian settings continue to be deprived of basic SRHR resulting in devastating consequences [2, 6]. Humanitarian emergencies are known to be “a complex mix of occurrences that may result from natural forces (extreme weather or geological activity) or human activities (conflict, social upheaval, and environmental degradation)” [7].

The past decade has recorded the highest numbers of forcibly displaced persons globally since World War II; from 51.2 million in 2013 [8], to 65.6 million by the end of 2016, and to 79.5 million in 2019 [9]. These numbers, which continue to rise, have led to over 160 million persons requiring humanitarian aid globally, which includes over 32 million women and girls of reproductive age [10]. Moreover, the number of these persons returning home is greatly declining [1, 9]. This rapid increase is partly due to the high number of natural disasters, with approximately 340 occurring annually that affect over 200 million people [8, 11]. Additionally, displacements also result from armed and political conflicts and from conflicts over scarce resources, environmental stress, and human rights violations [1, 12]. These factors have consequently increased the burden on humanitarian settings both internally (forceful displacements from homes but persons remain within their country) and externally (where the persons displaced move out of their country) [11].

A 2018 UNFPA report confirmed that over 500 women and girls die daily from pregnancy and childbirth-related complications in humanitarian settings [6]. In Iraq, about 28% of girls were married before the age of 18 during the eighth year of the humanitarian crisis [13] and at least 21 young girls between 10 and 14 years were raped daily during the internal conflict in Columbia in 2018 [1]. Overall, more than 50% of maternal and 45% of neonatal deaths in the world occur in humanitarian settings [14, 15], indicating the urgent need to address and improve access to quality SRH services in humanitarian settings to protect women, children, and communities.

SRH is defined as “a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to all aspects of sexuality and reproduction, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity” [13]. To enable sustainable SRH, the sexual rights of all must be achieved. This includes the rights of women and girls and other vulnerable populations, especially those in humanitarian settings [16]. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) defined the human rights of women as “their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality free of coercion, discrimination, and violence.” [1, 16]. These definitions integrate SRH and basic human rights making it a fundamental obligation for everyone to be entitled to the best available standard of care for SRHR [17].

Despite the interventions in place, evidence suggests that disparities continue to persist between the SRHR agenda and current outcomes, particularly in humanitarian settings [13]. Understanding the root causes of these gaps is essential as this will enable the development of improved approaches to achieve upstream population-based decisions that will provide impactful and sustainable solutions [18]. This commentary will discuss the gaps in the holistic management of SRHR in humanitarian settings, will explore why these gaps persist and will discuss how they expose women and girls to increased morbidity and mortality.

Impact of humanitarian contexts on SRHR risks, morbidity and mortality, access to care, and outcomes

Although women and girls in displaced and refugee settings often experience a greater need for SRH services they are often neglected, resulting in limited access to basic SRH services, thereby increasing their risk of morbidity and mortality [4, 5]. Inadequate SRH service delivery in humanitarian settings is due to three main factors. First, the systems and institutions that normally provide SRHR services are weakened or destroyed by the resulting crisis [19, 20] and second, victims have limited access to financial and material resources and suffer from stigma and discrimination [19]. Third, persons in these settings often lack information and knowledge about their rights and services linked to SRH which usually affects their power to negotiate and make decisions about their own health [13, 21].

At the community level, displacement causes family and community bonds to dissociate as family members get separated, and local and social norms are no longer respected [20]. Adolescent girls and young women are particularly impacted [22, 23] primarily because they constitute the highest proportion of those affected by conflicts and migration globally, which exposes them to the inherent vulnerabilities in humanitarian settings including sexual assault, stigma and discrimination, low access to quality health services and inadequate resources [24, 25]. Also, in most settings (including vulnerable settings), adolescent girls and young women are more deprived of family roles and resources, such as education and finance, and have higher exposure to other forms of violation including child, early and forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and honor killing compared to their male peers [20, 23]. This results in an increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV), sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), subsequent unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and birth-related complications, which inevitably lead to maternal deaths that could have otherwise been preventable [22, 25, 25, 26]. Studies have confirmed at least one in five women are victims of sexual violence in humanitarian settings [14, 27]. Victims of GBV often suffer and die due to related complications including injury and ill health from STIs like HIV, murder from practices like honor killings, and suicide from social and psychological trauma [7, 28]. There is evidence of high rates of mortality resulting from GBV. For example, in the Burmese refugee population in Thailand, over 5 million women die from honor killings annually and 2 out of 3 victims of suicide are women, with most resulting from domestic violence and rape [7]. Additionally, young girls who are involved in child marriage have an increased risk of experiencing domestic violence and early pregnancy, and most end up having unsafe abortions with associated complications which increases their risk of mortality [13].

In the context of healthcare service delivery, basic services such as safe abortion, family planning, and prenatal and postnatal care are usually not sufficiently provided or are inaccessible [1, 26, 29]. Health supplies including medication and equipment are largely insufficient with very few trained health personnel [4, 29] aware of the specific needs of this vulnerable group [13]. Moreover, healthcare providers in these settings are often working under dire conditions with very limited essential material, have low salary rates that are paid irregularly, [30, 31] and are sometimes victims of violence and harassment which leads to psychosocial discomfort and eventual low performance at work [31]. This leads to poor SRHR services which ultimately exposes women to further negative SRH outcomes. A study in Pakistan in 2011 revealed that women who gave birth in relief camps during the flood had no skilled birth attendants present, used unhygienic birth stations, and had poor postnatal services which increased the risk of mortality of these women and their newborns [4]. Another study in Africa confirmed only 5 out of 63 facilities in a humanitarian setting provided adequate obstetric and newborn care [14]. Even though unsafe abortions can constitute up to 50% of maternal deaths in humanitarian settings [13, 14], studies have confirmed the continued absence of safe abortion services in most health facilities in these localities [14], illustrating a significant gap that must be addressed urgently.

Persistent SRHR gaps in humanitarian settings

Despite the progress in SRHR globally and the evidence that access to these services improves well-being, saves lives, and constitutes a basic human right, SRH services for persons in humanitarian settings continue to remain highly suboptimal [14, 22, 32]. The root causes for poor SRHR are associated with the unique cultural, environmental, and political conditions in these settings [18].

Socio-cultural factors

Displaced persons are often discriminated against due to their vulnerable status, their sexual orientation, and unintended premarital pregnancies which negatively impact their SRHR [18]. Several studies have reported the judgmental attitude and rudeness of healthcare providers providing SRH services in these settings which further hinders access to available SRH services by refugees and migrants as most of them shy away [33,34,35]. Cultural and language differences between migrants and healthcare workers also interfere with proper SRH services, as there is miscommunication and misunderstanding which sometimes causes misdiagnosis and eventual poor treatment [18]. Some nations and societies do not tolerate SRH practices such as abortion and the use of contraception. These topics thus remain taboo, and these attitudes make accessing SRHR services difficult even in cases where these interventions would benefit the health of the individual [33, 36]. There continues to be misunderstanding and misconception surrounding services such as contraception, with many individuals believing it causes infertility and cancer [37]. Other cultural and religious beliefs that prohibit premarital sex [21] and forbid others, especially men, from touching married women (even when they need health services) further hinder women’s access to SRHR services, promotes stigma and discrimination, and exposes women and girls to increased risk of mortality given that SRH services are not being used and complications are thus left unattended [37].

Environmental factors

Emerging threats and natural disasters continue to negatively impact SRHR services in humanitarian settings due to the increase in the number of displaced persons, which subsequently increases the burden placed on humanitarian settings. Also, resources for SRH are further limited as they are shifted away from vital SRH services to respond to the current crisis at hand [1, 14, 38]. For example, in Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak, there was a drastic drop in ante-natal care and family planning services in the camps as resources were shifted to handle the current crisis. This consequently led to over 3600 additional maternal, stillborn, and neonatal deaths between 2014 and 2015 [39]. Moreover, SRH access is even further reduced during disasters and crises due to lockdowns and other crisis-related restrictions like reduced mobility and social distancing that limits access to health facilities [40, 41]. For instance, during the Ebola lockdown, maternal mortality increased by 75% due to the inability to access SRHR information, services like safe abortion, and modern contraception, which consequently increased the rates of unintended pregnancies and left many lives at risk [41]. Similar findings occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, where SRHR needs were highly neglected leaving more people exposed to gender-based violence that consequently increased morbidity and mortality [42].

Humanitarian settings are noted for poor living and working conditions and poor access to SRH which is sometimes life-threatening [22, 38, 43]. These locations, which are usually remote with limited access to proper healthcare facilities [44], have most of their inhabitants living in poor and illegal conditions making it more difficult for them to move to access better services elsewhere [22]. Moreover, most of the health services are delivered with payments out of pocket, which most of these inhabitants cannot afford. Consequently, the cost of important SRH services renders this important care inaccessible for these vulnerable populations, thereby increasing the risk of unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths, which are ultimately preventable in these situations [22].

Political factors

Although efforts have been made by international, regional, and national agencies to improve SRHR service delivery in humanitarian settings [45], the geopolitical and historical contexts have not enabled horizontal collaborations. Significant upstream structures including neoliberalism and the humanitarian structure continue to cause friction at the national level leading to inadequate resource availability and poor SRH services [1]. Other factors include the limited capacity of global humanitarian agencies which are strained due to the rise in the number of displaced persons [1], and the neglect of some groups and services by rescue initiatives and international agencies [13]. For instance, adolescents are neither catered for by GBV services nor child protection services, which causes unaddressed violations like child marriage in this group [13, 25]. The non-inclusion of abortion services in the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for SRH even for rape victims fails to address these particular needs for women and girls in crisis settings as abortion services are not offered when needed [13]. Moreover, most host countries of displaced persons do not offer sustainable solutions to ensure that proper SRH services and protection are offered for refugees [22]. Furthermore, available programs are lacking sufficient funding, proper program evaluation, and adequate implementation services to measure and monitor the effectiveness of services in these populations [14, 46].


Conditions related to SRHR continue to be the leading cause of death and suffering among women of childbearing age in humanitarian settings globally [3]. The increasing number of persons requiring humanitarian support, poor health infrastructure, and insufficient policies to guide and supervise SRHR interventions and regulations in these settings continue to be major setbacks to the provision of holistic care. These gaps continue to expose vulnerable women and girls to a higher risk of mortality and related complications which requires urgent action to ensure that holistic care is offered in an environmentally relevant and upstream manner. To achieve sustainable and universal access to SRH, more investment in comprehensive and integrated services to target hard-to-reach areas and poorer settings must be employed [47, 48]. This should not be limited to the provision of comprehensive services but should also involve the provision of legal and policy mechanisms and proper evaluation to guide the implementation of these services [34, 46]. A clear and in-depth understanding of regulations guiding the SRHR of these populations by both lived-experience insights gained directly from inhabitants in addition to the insight provided by service providers is also paramount to integrating both perspectives to better understand how to address these continuing gaps that prevent women and girls from achieving optimal SRH [5, 14]. Therefore, highly active multi-sectoral collaboration is required to provide high-quality and accountable services [49] and to recognize that SRHR constitutes a basic human right that does not need to be violated [22, 50].

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.


  1. Starrs AM, Ezeh AC, Barker G, Basu A, Bertrand JT, Blum R, et al. Accelerate progress—sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: report of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission. The Lancet. 2018;391(10140):2642–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Health TLG. Headway and hindrances for sexual and reproductive health and rights. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(8): e973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dawson A, Tappis H, Tran NT. Self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian and fragile settings: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):757.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Maheen H, Hoban E. Rural women’s experience of living and giving birth in relief camps in Pakistan. PLoS Curr. 2017;9:ecurrents.dis.7285361a16eefbeddacc8599f326a1dd.

  5. Dias Amaral B, Sakellariou D. Maternal health in crisis: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators to safe abortion care in humanitarian crises. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021;2: 699121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Humanitarian Action, 2018 Overview: UNFPA_HumanitAction_2018_Jan_31_ONLINE.pdf.

  7. Managing Gender-based Violence Programmes in Emmergencies: GBV E-Learning Companion Guide_ENGLISH.pdf (

  8. Chynoweth SK. Advancing reproductive health on the humanitarian agenda: the 2012–2014 global review. Confl Health. 2015;9(1):I1.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Palattiyil G, Sidhva D, Seraphia Derr A, Macgowan M. Global trends in forced migration: policy, practice and research imperatives for social work. Int Soc Work. 2022;65(6):1111–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Singh NS, Smith J, Aryasinghe S, Khosla R, Say L, Blanchet K. Evaluating the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7): e0199300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connell KA, Hailegebriel TS, Garfinkel D, Durham J, Yakob B, Kassaw J, et al. Meeting the sexual and reproductive health needs of internally displaced persons in Ethiopia’s Somali Region: a qualitative process evaluation. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(5): e2100818.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Refugees UNHC for. UNHCR Global Trends 2018 [Internet]. UNHCR. [cited 2022 Dec 15]. Available from:

  13. Endler M, Haidari TA, Chowdhury S, Christilaw J, Kak FE, Galimberti D, et al. Sexual and reproductive health and rights of refugee and migrant women: gynecologists’ and obstetricians’ responsibilities. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;149(1):113–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heidari S, Onyango MA, Chynoweth S. Sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian crises at ICPD25+ and beyond: consolidating gains to ensure access to services for all. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27(1):343–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Maternal mortality [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 18]. Available from:

  16. Gruskin S, Yadav V, Castellanos-Usigli A, Khizanishvili G, Kismödi E. Sexual health, sexual rights and sexual pleasure: meaningfully engaging the perfect triangle. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27(1):1593787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gruskin S, Zacharias K, Jardell W, Ferguson L, Khosla R. Inclusion of human rights in sexual and reproductive health programming: facilitators and barriers to implementation. Glob Public Health. 2021;16(10):1559–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egli-Gany D, Aftab W, Hawkes S, Abu-Raddad L, Buse K, Rabbani F, et al. The social and structural determinants of sexual and reproductive health and rights in migrants and refugees: a systematic review of reviews. East Mediterr Health J. 2021;27(12):1203–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (ASRH) Toolkit for Humanitarian Settings: 2020 Edition [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 23]. Available from:

  20. Strong Girls, Powerful Women: Program Planning and Design for Adolescent Girls in Humanitarian Settings [Internet]. Women’s Refugee Commission. [cited 2022 Dec 22]. Available from:

  21. Thongmixay S, Essink DR, de Greeuw T, Vongxay V, Sychareun V, Broerse JEW. Perceived barriers in accessing sexual and reproductive health services for youth in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10): e0218296.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tirado V, Chu J, Hanson C, Ekström AM, Kågesten A. Barriers and facilitators for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young people in refugee contexts globally: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7): e0236316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ashraf M, Azad A. Gender issues in disaster: understanding the relationships of vulnerability, preparedness and capacity. Environ Ecol Res. 2015;1(3):136–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Warren CE, Mayhew SH, Hopkins J. The current status of research on the integration of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services. Stud Fam Plann. 2017;48(2):91–105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Stark L, Seff I, Reis C. Gender-based violence against adolescent girls in humanitarian settings: a review of the evidence. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021;5(3):210–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bahamondes L, Laporte M, Margatho D, de Amorim HSF, Brasil C, Charles CM, et al. Maternal health among Venezuelan women migrants at the border of Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2020;23(20):1771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ellsberg M, Ovince J, Murphy M, Blackwell A, Reddy D, Stennes J, et al. No safe place: prevalence and correlates of violence against conflict-affected women and girls in South Sudan. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10): e0237965.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wirtz AL, Perrin NA, Desgroppes A, Phipps V, Abdi AA, Ross B, et al. Lifetime prevalence, correlates and health consequences of gender-based violence victimisation and perpetration among men and women in Somalia. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(4): e000773.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jennings L, George AS, Jacobs T, Blanchet K, Singh NS. A forgotten group during humanitarian crises: a systematic review of sexual and reproductive health interventions for young people including adolescents in humanitarian settings. Confl Health. 2019;13(1):57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mowafi H, Nowak K, Hein K. Facing the challenges in human resources for humanitarian health. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(5):351–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Elnakib S, Elaraby S, Othman F, BaSaleem H, Abdulghani AlShawafi NA, Saleh Al-Gawfi IA, et al. Providing care under extreme adversity: the impact of the Yemen conflict on the personal and professional lives of health workers. Soc Sci Med. 2021;1(272): 113751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mason-Jones AJ, Nicholson P. Structural violence and marginalization. The sexual and reproductive health experiences of separated young people on the move. A rapid review with relevance to the European humanitarian crisis. Public Health. 2018;158:156–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wakjira DB, Habedi D. Barriers to access and utilisation of sexual and reproductive health services among adolescents in Ethiopia: a sequential mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11): e063294.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Arnott G, Otema C, Obalim G, Odallo B, Nakubulwa T, Okello SBT. Human rights-based accountability for sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian settings: findings from a pilot study in northern Uganda. PLOS Global Public Health. 2022;2(8): e0000836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ninsiima LR, Chiumia IK, Ndejjo R. Factors influencing access to and utilisation of youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Mullis MD, Kastrinos A, Wollney E, Taylor G, Bylund CL. International barriers to parent-child communication about sexual and reproductive health topics: a qualitative systematic review. Sex Educ. 2021;21(4):387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Socio-Cultural Barriers Influencing Utilization of Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) Information and Services among Adolescents and Youth 10–24 Years in Pastoral Communities in Kenya [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 26]. Available from:

  38. Lokot M, Avakyan Y. Intersectionality as a lens to the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for sexual and reproductive health in development and humanitarian contexts. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1764748.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sochas L, Channon AA, Nam S. Counting indirect crisis-related deaths in the context of a low-resilience health system: the case of maternal and neonatal health during the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(suppl_3):iii32–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. How COVID-19 is threatening girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights [Internet]. Plan International. [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from:

  41. The Impact of COVID-19 on SRHR: Youth-led Perspectives and Solutions for a Gender-Equal World [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from:

  42. Gender Based Violence, SRHR, and Covid-19 | Columbia Public Health [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from:

  43. Interim Guidance on Scaling-up COVID-19 Outbreak Readiness and Response Operations in Camps and Camp-like Settings | IASC [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from:

  44. Humanitarian operations, camps and other fragile settings [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from:

  45. Kibira D, Asiimwe C, Muwonge M, van den Ham HA, Reed T, Leufkens HG, et al. Donor commitments and disbursements for sexual and reproductive health Aid in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Front Public Health. 2021;9: 645499.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Casey SE. Evaluations of reproductive health programs in humanitarian settings: a systematic review. Confl Health. 2015;9(1):S1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. An Essential Element of Universal Health Coverage: UF_SupplementAndUniversalAccess_30-online.pdf (

  48. Snow RC, Laski L, Mutumba M. Sexual and reproductive health: progress and outstanding needs. Glob Public Health. 2015;10(2):149–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Roxo U, Mobula ML, Walker D, Ficht A, Yeiser S. Prioritizing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of adolescent girls and young women within HIV treatment and care services in emergency settings: a girl-centered agenda. Reprod Health. 2019;16(Suppl 1):57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ireland H, Tran NT, Dawson A. The role of social capital in women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian settings: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Confl Heal. 2021;15(1):87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references




No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SY conceived the editorial topic. RSAT, IME and JMH met, discussed, and outlined sections to be written; they worked closely together as a team to draft the manuscript. SY provided guidance and critically reviewed the manuscript. SY had final responsibility to submit. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanni Yaya.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Sanni Yaya is Editor-in-chief of Reproductive Health.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tazinya, R.M.A., El-Mowafi, I.M., Hajjar, J.M. et al. Sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian settings: a matter of life and death. Reprod Health 20, 42 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: