Carrying out embedded implementation research in humanitarian settings: A qualitative study in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh


Autoři: A. S. M. Shahabuddin aff001;  Alyssa B. Sharkey aff001;  Debra Jackson aff001;  Paul Rutter aff002;  Andreas Hasman aff002;  Malabika Sarker aff003
Působiště autorů: Implementation Research and Delivery Science Unit, Health Section, UNICEF, New York, New York, United States of America aff001;  Health Section, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, Kathmandu, Nepal aff002;  James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: Carrying out embedded implementation research in humanitarian settings: A qualitative study in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. PLoS Med 17(7): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003148
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003148

Souhrn

Background

Embedded implementation research (IR) promotes evidence-informed policy and practices by involving decision-makers and program implementers in research activities that focus on understanding and solving existing implementation challenges. Although embedded IR has been conducted in multiple settings by different organizations, there are limited experiences of embedded IR in humanitarian settings. This study highlights some of the key challenges of conducting embedded IR in a humanitarian setting based on our experience with the Rohingya refugee population in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

Methods and findings

We collected qualitative data in between January and July 2019. First, we visited Rohingya refugee camps and interviewed representatives from different humanitarian organizations. Second, we conducted interviews with researchers from BRAC University who were engaged with data collection and analysis in a broader embedded IR study on maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (MNCAH) program implementation challenges. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Two researchers developed and agreed on codes and relevant themes based on the objectives of this study. The findings of this study highlight several challenges encountered while conducting embedded IR in the Rohingya emergency setting in Cox’s Bazar, which may have implications for other humanitarian settings. The overall context of the camps was complex, with more than 100 organizations devoted to providing health services for approximately 1 million refugees. Despite the presence of the Bangladesh government, United Nations agencies and other international organizations played key roles in making programmatic and policy decisions for the Rohingya. Because health service delivery modalities and policies and related implementation challenges for MNCAH programs for the refugees changed rapidly, the embedded IR approach used was flexible and able to adapt to changes identified, with research questions and methods modified accordingly. Access to the camps, reaching Rohingya respondents, overcoming language barriers in order to get quality information, and the limited availability of local research collaborators were additional challenges. Working with researchers or research institutes that are familiar with the context and have experience in conducting implementation and health systems research can help with collection of quality data, identifying key stakeholders and bringing them on board to ensure the execution of the project, and ensuring utilization of the research findings. Study limitations include possible constraints in generalizing our conclusions to other humanitarian settings. Implementation research conducted in additional humanitarian settings can contribute to the evidence on this topic.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that embedded IR can be done effectively in humanitarian settings if the challenges are anticipated, and appropriate strategies and in-country partners put in place to address or mitigate them, before commencing the funding or starting of the project. Understanding the context and analyzing the role of relevant stakeholders prior to conducting the research, considering a simple descriptive method appropriate to answering real-time IR questions, and working with local researchers or research institutes with specific skill sets and prior experience conducting research in humanization contexts may reduce costs and time spent, and ensure collection of quality data relevant for policy and practice.

Klíčová slova:

Bangladesh – Health care policy – Health services research – Health systems strengthening – Child health – Language – Research assessment – Science policy


Zdroje

1. Theobald S, Brandes N, Gyapong M, El-Saharty S, Proctor E, Diaz T, et al. Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health. Lancet. 2018;392(10160):2214–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32205-0 30314860

2. Alonge O, Rodriguez DC, Brandes N, Geng E, Reveiz L, Peters DH. How is implementation research applied to advance health in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e001257. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001257 30997169

3. Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 2):S58–S64.

4. Ghaffar A, Langlois EV, Rasanathan K, Peterson S, Adedokun L, Tran NT. Strengthening health systems through embedded research. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(2):87. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.189126 28250505

5. Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Ghaffar A. Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:30. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-11-30 23924162

6. Sarkies MN, Bowles KA, Skinner EH, Haas R, Lane H, Haines TP. The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0662-0 29137659

7. Bhatia A, Mahmud A, Fuller A, Shin R, Rahman A, Shatil T, et al. The Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar: when the stateless seek refuge. Health Hum Rights. 2018;20(2):105–22. 30568406

8. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Rohingya refugee crisis. New York: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://www.unocha.org/rohingya-refugee-crisis.

9. World Health Organization. Rohingya refugee crisis: humanitarian response plan. September 2017–February 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/2017_HRP_Bangladesh_041017_2.pdf.

10. Islam MM, Nuzhath T. Health risks of Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh: a call for global attention. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2):020309. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.020309 30410735

11. World Health Organization South-East Asia Regional Office. Rohingya crisis in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh: health sector bulletin. Bulletin number 09. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019 May [cited 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/bangladesh/bangladesh—rohingya-crisis—pdf-reports/health-sector-bulletin/health-sector-bulletin-no-9—10-march-2019—11-may-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=9ec07a12_4.

12. Strategic Executive Group. 2019 joint response plan for Rohingya humanitarian crisis. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2019JRPforRohingyaHumanitarianCrisis%28February2019%29.comp_.pdf.

13. Banerjee S. The Rohingya crisis: a health situation analysis of refugee camps in Bangladesh. New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation; 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-rohingya-crisis-a-health-situation-analysis-of-refugee-camps-in-bangladesh-53011/.

14. Ahmed R, Farnaz N, Aktar B, Hassan R, Bin Shafique S, Ray P, et al. Situation analysis for delivering integrated comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian crisis condition for Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: protocol for a mixed-method study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e028340. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028340 31272979

15. Parmar PK, Jin RO, Walsh M, Scott J. Mortality in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh: historical, social, and political context. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27(2):1610275. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1610275 31533592

16. Lal G, Anderson R. Maternal and newborn health: Rohingya refugee crisis. Washington (DC): Wilson Center; 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/geeta_lal_maternal_and_newborn_health-rohingya_refugee_crisis.pdf.

17. World Health Organization South-East Asia Regional Office. Rohingya refugee crisis in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: health sector bulletin. Bulletin number 06. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 [cited 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/bangladesh/bangladesh—rohingya-crisis—pdf-reports/health-sector-bulletin/health-sector-bulletin-no-6—04-june—06-september-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=3a5a3139_4.

18. Sarker M, Saha A, Matin M, Mehjabeen S, Tamim MA, Sharkey AB, et al. Effective maternal, newborn and child health programming among Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: implementation challenges and potential solutions. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0230732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230732 32214359

19. Ford N, Mills EJ, Zachariah R, Upshur R. Ethics of conducting research in conflict settings. Confl Health. 2009;3:7. doi: 10.1186/1752-1505-3-7 19591691

20. Boudreaux ED, Cydulka R, Bock B, Borrelli B, Bernstein SL. Conceptual models of health behavior: research in the emergency care settings. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(11):1120–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00543.x 20053231

21. Dahab M. Operational challenges of implementing research in humanitarian settings: lessons learned from R2HC funded projects. Cardiff: Elrha; 2017 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://www.elrha.org/researchdatabase/operational-challenges-implementing-health-research-humanitarian-settings.

22. Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4 Suppl):73–107. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00434-8 11985936

23. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Ann M. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465 9703533

24. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for evaluation and design of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 10987780

25. Jepson RG, Harris FM, Platt S, Tannahill C. The effectiveness of interventions to change six health behaviours: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:538. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-538 20825660

26. Joffe H, Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks DF, Yardley L, editors. Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2004.

27. Williamson K, Given LM, Scifleet P. Qualitative data analysis. In: Williamson K, Johanson G, editors. Research methods: information, systems, and contexts. 2nd edition. Chandos Publishing; 2017.

28. Glisczinski D. Thematic analysis. J Transform Educ. 2018;16(3):175.

29. Peters DH, Tran NT, Adam T. Implementation research in health: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 [cited 2020 Jun 22]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/91758.

30. Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S, Zwarenstein M. What is implementation research?: Rationale, concepts, and practices. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009;19(5):491–502.

31. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Republished research: implementation research: what it is and how to do it. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(8):731–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6753 24659611

32. Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A. Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:212. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 21696585

33. United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation research for immunization: summary report of global activities supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—2015–2018. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund; 2018.

34. Leeman J, Birken SA, Powell BJ, Rohweder C, Shea CM. Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0657-x 29100551

35. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 20957426

36. BRAC. BRAC’s humanitarian response in Cox’s Bazar: strategy for 2018. Dhaka: BRAC; 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/brac-s-humanitarian-response-cox-s-bazar-strategy-2018.

37. Caitlin W, Bryant J. Capacity and complementarity in the Rohingya response in Bangladesh. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. Available from: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/12554.pdf.

38. Churruca K, Ludlow K, Taylor N, Long JC, Best S, Braithwaite J. The time has come: embedded implementation research for health care improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(3):373–80. doi: 10.1111/jep.13100 30632246

39. Lee SK, Sulaiman-Hill CR, Thompson SC. Overcoming language barriers in community-based research with refugee and migrant populations: options for using bilingual workers. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2014;14:11. doi: 10.1186/1472-698X-14-11 24725431

40. Murphy KM, Yoshikawa H, Wuermli AJ. Implementation research for early childhood development programming in humanitarian contexts. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1419(1):90–101. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13691 29791733

41. Squires A. Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: a research review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(2):277–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006 18789799

42. Chu KM, Jayaraman S, Kyamanywa P, Ntakiyiruta G. Building research capacity in Africa: equity and global health collaborations. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001612 24618823

43. Zachariah R, Harries AD, Ishikawa N, Rieder HL, Bissell K, Laserson K, et al. Operational research in low-income countries: what, why, and how? Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9(11):711–7. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70229-4 19850229


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2020 Číslo 7

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Kurzy Doporučená témata Časopisy
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

VIRTUÁLNÍ ČEKÁRNA ČR Jste praktický lékař nebo pediatr? Zapojte se! Jste praktik nebo pediatr? Zapojte se!

×