Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions prevent and control disease in humanitarian response. To inform future funding and policy priorities, WASH ‘gaps’ were identified via 220 focus-group discussions with people affected by crises and WASH practitioners, 246 global survey respondents, and 614 documents. After extraction, 2,888 (48 per cent) gaps from direct feedback and 3,151 (52 per cent) from literature were categorised. People affected by crises primarily listed ‘services gaps’, including a need for water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, and hygiene items. Global survey respondents principally cited ‘mechanism gaps’ in providing services, including collaboration, WASH staffing expertise, and community engagement. Literature highlighted gaps in health (but not other) WASH intervention impacts. Overall, people affected by crises wanted the ‘what’ (services), responders wanted the ‘how’ (to supply), and researchers wanted the ‘why’ (health consequences). This study suggests a need for a renewed focus on basic WASH services, collaboration across stakeholders, and research on WASH outcomes beyond health.

中文翻译：

---

人道主义 WASH 响应中的差距：受危机影响的人们、从业者、全球响应者和文献的观点

水、环境卫生和个人卫生 (WASH) 干预措施可预防和控制人道主义响应中的疾病。为了告知未来的资金和政策优先事项，通过与受危机影响的人和 WASH 从业者、246 名全球调查受访者和 614 份文件进行的 220 次焦点小组讨论，确定了 WASH 的“差距”。提取后，对来自直接反馈的 2,888 个（48%）差距和来自文献的 3,151 个（52%）差距进行了分类。受危机影响的人主要列出了“服务差距”，包括对水、卫生设施、固体废物处理和卫生用品的需求。全球调查受访者主要提到提供服务方面的“机制差距”，包括协作、WASH 人员配备专业知识和社区参与。文献强调了 WASH 干预措施在健康（而非其他）影响方面的差距。全面的，受危机影响的人想要“什么”（服务），响应者想要“如何”（提供），而研究人员想要“为什么”（健康后果）。这项研究表明需要重新关注基本的 WASH 服务、利益相关者之间的合作以及对健康之外的 WASH 结果的研究。