ArticleConflict and health2025
Setting research priorities for sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian settings: a global, stakeholder-informed agenda.
Article in Conflict and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain critically underfunded and underresearched in humanitarian settings. Existing global research agendas are outdated, lack an implementation focus and often exclude perspectives from frontline practitioners. This exercise aims to identify and rank actionable research priorities globally and by region.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional global, multiphase prioritisation exercise with information from frontline practitioners. The process included a scoping review and 11 regional consultations (informed by 91 SRHR experts), resulting in a long list of 101 SRHR research needs. Using these, we systematically listed and refined the SRHR research questions. A budget-weighted research prioritisation (BWRP) method was used for a global, multilingual survey to score 73 SRHR implementation questions across nine SRHR topical domains and three crosscutting domains. Domains were weighted equally, and regional priorities were identified.
resultsA total of 271 experts contributed to the prioritisation ranking. Themes prioritised within the domains included the delivery of community-based care, self-care strategies, the integration of mental health into SRHR services and the improvement of adolescent access to contraception. A strong consensus emerged on the need to research topics such as human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination, emergency obstetric and newborn care, and resilient SRHR service delivery amid climate shock. Substantial regional variation underscores the need for locally contextualised agendas, e.g., Europe and Central Asia prioritised quality of care and noncommunicable disease integration, whereas Latin America and the Caribbean emphasised gender-transformative approaches and community leadership.
conclusionThis stakeholder-informed research agenda responds to calls for context-specific SRHR research in humanitarian settings. The importance of tailoring research to local realities, including health system capacity, legal constraints and cultural norms, was a recurrent theme across all regions. The BWRP method enables clear prioritisation while reducing respondent burden, offering a practical model for future exercises. As global funding for SRHR contracts, aligning research with frontline needs is critical to ensuring effective, equitable service delivery.
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.