Search

There is a strong need to critically consider the neocolonial context when discussing the impact evaluation of Eemergency Medical Services (EMS) systems in many low to middle-income countries. Many of these countries have faced exploitation and settler colonialism, and in today's world the aftermath of these political–economic unequal power dynamics persists through neocolonialism. "Solutions" to prehospital care and related donor-driven development sector aid programs are typically orchestrated by high-income countries in the Global North, many of whom directly benefited from centuries of colonizing the Global South. This perpetuates the financial and technocratic dependency of many low to middle-income countries. Traditional Global North–led impact assessment typically revolves around mortality outcomes. This is problematic because singularly tracking mortality can obscure the influence of important factors at play beyond the emergency response incident itself, such as morbidity and socioeconomic privilege. This is why process indicators such as response times and economic impacts on first responders and communities are crucial. Hence, instead of trying to develop a one-size-fits-all impact assessment criteria for all the diverse prehospital care system contexts across the world, it is important to focus on enabling bottom-up, community-led, and participatory approaches to finding context-tailored solutions. A key element of this should be the co-creation of the measures of success themselves with the community stakeholders. Such a decolonial holistic approach may then help put the spotlight on often neglected important measures, such as the inclusion of underprivileged minorities in emergency response and the level of protection against catastrophic health care expenditure built into EMS systems. In doing so, it can encourage a monitoring and evaluation shift from short-term mortality to long-term wellbeing, taking into account cultural contexts about what "wellbeing" entails. Furthermore, it is important to challenge the taken-for-granted notion that in low to middle-income countries, EMS systems are solely for trauma and medical emergencies. It is also important to consider (with the dialogue led by the local stakeholders) what sustainability would look like, and how resources accordingly should be allocated, in those regions in low to middle-income countries where there is political and economic volatility as a consequence of continuing neocolonial hegemony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]