Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33088339›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2020

Researching the delivery of health and nutrition interventions for women and children in the context of armed conflict: lessons on research challenges and strategies from BRANCH Consortium case studies of Somalia, Mali, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Michelle F Gaffey, Anushka Ataullahjan, Jai K Das, Shafiq Mirzazada, Moctar Tounkara, Abdirisak A Dalmar, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Michelle F GaffeyCentre for Global Child Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, 686 Bay St, Toronto, ON M5G 0A4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1800-8145
Anushka AtaullahjanCentre for Global Child Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, 686 Bay St, Toronto, ON M5G 0A4 Canada.
Jai K DasAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Shafiq MirzazadaAga Khan University, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Moctar TounkaraUniversity of Sciences, Techniques and Technology of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Abdirisak A DalmarSomali Disaster Resilience Institute, Mogadishu, Somalia.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaCentre for Global Child Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, 686 Bay St, Toronto, ON M5G 0A4 Canada.
Aga Khan University · PKHospital for Sick Children · CAKabul University · AFSIMAD University · SOUniversité des Sciences, des Techniques et des Technologies de Bamako · ML

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe BRANCH Consortium recently conducted 10 mixed-methods case studies to investigate the provision of health and nutrition interventions for women and children in conflict-affected countries, aiming to better understand the dominant influences on humanitarian health actors' programmatic decision-making and how such actors surmount intervention delivery barriers. In this paper, the research challenges encountered and the mitigating strategies employed by the case study investigators in four of the BRANCH case study contexts are discussed: Somalia, Mali, Pakistan and Afghanistan. DISCUSSION: Many of the encountered research challenges were anticipated, with investigators adopting mitigation strategies in advance or early on, but others were unexpected, with implications for how studies were ultimately conducted and how well the original study aims were met. Insecurity was a fundamental challenge in all study contexts, with restricted geographical access and concerns for personal safety affecting sampling and data collection plans, and requiring reliance on digital communications, remote study management, and off-site team meetings wherever possible. The need to navigate complex local sociopolitical contexts required maximum reliance on local partners' knowledge, expertise and networks, and this was facilitated by early engagement with a wide range of local study stakeholders. Severe lack of reliable quantitative data on intervention coverage affected the extent to which information from different sources could be triangulated or integrated to inform an understanding of the influences on humanitarian actors' decision-making.

conclusionStrong local partners are essential to the success of any project, contributing not only technical and methodological capacity but also the insight needed to truly understand and interpret local dynamics for the wider study team and to navigate those dynamics to ensure study rigour and relevance. Maintaining realistic expectations of data that are typically available in conflict settings is also essential, while pushing for more resources and further methodological innovation to improve data collection in such settings. Finally, successful health research in the complex, dynamic and unpredictable contexts of conflict settings requires flexibility and adaptability of researchers, as well as sponsors and donors.

Indexed as

AfghanistanHumanitarian healthMaliMaternal and child healthMixed methodsPakistanResearch challengesSomalia

Identifiers

PMID33088339
PMCPMC7574460
OpenAlexW3094381928

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.