ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Innovative strategies and implementation science approaches for health delivery among migrants in humanitarian settings: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A pioneering health education strategy based on the PRECEDE-PROCEED model for women's health challenges: a systematic review and logic framework.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical recognition of pediatric diphtheria in a resource-limited Somali hospital: a prospective observational study.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Psychosocial Preparedness for Disasters: A Scoping Review of International Models and Public Health Priorities.Current psychiatry reports · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to integrating mental health and psychosocial support into economic inclusion programming for displaced families in Ecuador.Research square · 2026Article
- Community health assets and refugee wellbeing: Qualitative evidence across mental health, disability inclusion, end-of-life care, and women's health - A global scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Reaching zero-dose children in conflict-affected and fragile settings in the WHO African Region: a scoping review of strategies and evidence gaps.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Health equity in the wake of disasters and extreme weather: evidence from an umbrella review.Health affairs scholar · 2025Review
- Innovative strategies and implementation science approaches for health delivery among migrants in humanitarian settings: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver 100 million displaced people rely on health services in humanitarian contexts, defined as unstable or transitory settings created in response to complex emergencies. While services are often described, there is a dearth of evidence on best practices for successful implementation to guide efforts to optimize health delivery. Implementation science is a promising but underutilized tool to address this gap. This scoping review evaluates implementation science in health services for forced migrants in humanitarian settings.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review according to JBI methodologies. A search of eight databases yielded 7,795 articles, after removal of duplicates, that were screened using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Data extraction assessed study descriptors, implementation objects, barriers, facilitators, implementation strategies, and use of implementation frameworks in service delivery.
resultsData from 116 studies represented 37 countries and 11 topic areas. Methods were mainly cross-sectional with low-medium evidence rigor. Mental health programs (25%) and vaccination services (16%) were the most common objects of implementation. Thirty-eight unique barriers were identified including resource limitations (30%), health worker shortages (24%), and security risks (24%). Among 29 facilitators, the most common were health worker availability (25%), pre-existing partnerships (25%), and positive perceptions towards the intervention (20%). More than 90% of studies collectively identified 35 implementation strategies, the most common being capacity building (44%), stakeholder engagement (35%), information dissemination (38%), and feedback mechanisms (25%). Only 10 studies used formal implementation models, with RE-AIM (n = 3) and Intervention mapping (n = 2) being most frequent.
conclusionsIn this scoping review, we found similar barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies across diverse humanitarian migrant settings and services. However, the use of rigorous methods and formal implementation models was rare. Frameworks included RE-AIM, CFIR, and Precede-Proceed. Increased use of implementation science frameworks and methods will help humanitarians more rigorously and systematically evaluate and develop best practices for implementation of health services for migrants in humanitarian settings.
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.