ArticleConflict and health2024
Five recommendations to advance implementation science for humanitarian settings: the next frontier of humanitarian research.
Article in Conflict and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adapting, Sustaining and Scaling Violence against Women and Children Prevention Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Science.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2026Article
- Coincidence analysis: Identifying factors contributing to frontline health workers' confidence to face future pandemics across Honduras, Syria, and South Sudan.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Protocol for a community-engaged mixed-methods study for climate-related disaster preparedness and health care resilience in North Carolina.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Access to medicines and continuity of non-communicable diseases care for forcibly displaced populations: a call for rights-based, comprehensive responses.BMC global and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Challenges in delivering evidence-based programming in humanitarian crises require new strategies to enhance implementation science for better decision-making. A recent scoping review highlights the scarcity of peer-reviewed studies on implementation in conflict zones. In this commentary, we build on this scoping review and make five recommendations for advancing implementation science for humanitarian settings. These include (1) expanding existing frameworks and tailoring them to humanitarian dynamics, (2) utilizing hybrid study designs for effectiveness-implementation studies, (3) testing implementation strategies, (4) leveraging recent methodological advancements in social and data science, and (5) enhancing training and community engagement. These approaches aim to address gaps in understanding intervention effectiveness, scale, sustainability, and equity in humanitarian settings. Integrating implementation science into humanitarian research is essential for informed decision-making and improving outcomes for affected populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.