Neurology in Conflict: A Narrative Review of War’s Impact on Neurological Injuries, Chronic Care, and Health Systems
Aliu Yakubu1, Gregory Atafo2, Chioma Muotoh3
1Neurology, University of Texas Medical Branch, US, 2The Bank Hospital, 6 Bank Road, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana, 3College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Queen Elizabeth Road, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Objective:

To synthesize existing evidence on how armed conflict affects neurological health, spanning acute injuries, chronic disease management, and health system disruptions, and to highlight practice and policy gaps.


Background:

Armed conflict severely disrupts health systems and poses unique challenges to neurological care, yet the full scope of war’s neurological impacts remains underrecognized. Neurological conditions, both acute and chronic, often receive limited attention in humanitarian responses. This narrative review addresses that gap by examining how war affects neurological injuries, chronic neurological disease management, and health systems infrastructure.


Design/Methods:

A comprehensive narrative review of the literature was conducted to synthesize evidence on conflict-related neurological health issues. Relevant academic studies, humanitarian reports, and case observations were examined to identify key themes. The review emphasized broad conceptual insights over specific regional or quantitative findings, focusing on acute injury patterns, disruptions in chronic care, and systemic challenges to delivering neurological services during war.


Results:

Conflict-related trauma leads to a high incidence of acute neurological injuries such as traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries and peripheral nerve damage, and often overwhelms available medical resources. Meanwhile, care for patients with chronic neurological diseases is severely disrupted due to population displacement, damaged infrastructure, and medication shortages, resulting in uncontrolled illness progression. In addition, attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel violating international humanitarian law devastate health systems and further limit neurological care. Frontline providers in conflict zones frequently face ethical dilemmas and must deliver neurological care with improvised resources and disrupted referral networks. Collectively, these factors greatly amplify neurological morbidity and hinder continuity of care in conflict-affected regions, especially in resource-limited settings.


Conclusions:

War imposes profound acute and chronic neurological burdens, demanding urgent integration of neurological care into humanitarian response and post-conflict planning. Protecting health infrastructure and resources is essential to reducing long-term suffering.


10.1212/WNL.0000000000213194
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.