Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32435274›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2020

Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?

Enrica Leresche, Claudia Truppa, Christophe Martin, Ariana Marnicio, Rodolfo Rossi, Carla Zmeter, Hilda Harb, Randa Sami Hamadeh, Jennifer Leaning

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advancing Refugee Health Data Management: The Implementation of ICD-11 in UNRWA's Primary Care System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Enrica LerescheInternational Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-5821
Claudia TruppaInternational Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.
Christophe MartinInternational Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ariana Marnicio2Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Rodolfo Rossi3International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carla ZmeterInternational Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.
Hilda Harb4Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, Beirut, Lebanon.
Randa Sami Hamadeh4Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jennifer LeaningHarvard François Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Boston, USA.
Ministry of Public Health · LBInternational Committee of the Red Cross · CHMassachusetts Department of Public Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create balanced decision-making mechanisms, allow for relative financial autonomy, and define organizational responsibilities. Ultimately, mutual respect, trust and the recognition of each other's expertise formed the basis of an initiative that served to better understand populations affected by conflict and meet their needs.

Indexed as

Co-productionEvidence-based humanitarian actionHumanitarian responseOperational researchProtracted crisisResearch partnership

Identifiers

PMID32435274
PMCPMC7222467
OpenAlexW3026631577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.