Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37605198›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2023

How is the implementation of empirical research results documented in conflict-affected settings? Findings from a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.

Enrica Leresche, Mazeda Hossain, Maria Livia De Rubeis, Veerle Hermans, Doris Burtscher, Rodolfo Rossi, Cordelia Lonsdale, Neha S Singh

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Enrica LerescheDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. enrica.leresche@lshtm.ac.uk.
Mazeda HossainDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Maria Livia De RubeisLuxOR, Médecins Sans Frontières Operational Centre Brussels, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Veerle HermansLuxOR, Médecins Sans Frontières Operational Centre Brussels, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Doris BurtscherMédecins Sans Frontières Vienna Evaluation Unit, Vienna, Austria.
Rodolfo RossiCentre for Operational Research and Experience (CORE), International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cordelia LonsdaleElrha's Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises Programme, Cardiff, UK.
Neha S SinghDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Médecins Sans Frontières, Luxembourg Internal Funds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation science scholars argue that knowing 'what works' in public health is insufficient to change practices, without understanding 'how', 'where' and 'why' something works. In the peer reviewed literature on conflict-affected settings, challenges to produce research, make decisions informed by evidence, or deliver services are documented, but what about the understanding of 'how', 'where' and 'why' changes occur? We explored these questions through a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature based on core dimensions of the Extended Normalization Process Theory. We selected papers that provided data on how something might work (who is involved and how?), where (in what organizational arrangements or contexts?) and why (what was done?). We searched the Global Health, Medline, Embase databases. We screened 2054 abstracts and 128 full texts. We included 22 papers (of which 15 related to mental health interventions) and analysed them thematically. We had the results revised critically by co-authors experienced in operational research in conflict-affected settings. Using an implementation science lens, we found that: (a) implementing actors are often engaged after research is produced to discuss feasibility; (b) new interventions or delivery modalities need to be flexible; (c) disruptions affect how research findings can lead to sustained practices; (d) strong leadership and stable resources are crucial for frontline actors; (e) creating a safe learning space to discuss challenges is difficult; (f) feasibility in such settings needs to be balanced. Lastly, communities and frontline actors need to be engaged as early as possible in the research process. We used our findings to adapt the Extended Normalization Process Theory for operational research in settings affected by conflicts. Other theories used by researchers to document the implementation processes need to be studied further.

Indexed as

ConflictHumanitarianImplementationKnowledgeNormalization Process TheoryOperational researchPublic health

Identifiers

PMID37605198
PMCPMC10464477

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.