RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Background: Breastfeeding (BF) should be protected, promoted, and supported for all infants in humanitarian settings. The re-establishment of exclusive BF is also a central part of the management of acutely malnourished infants under 6 months (<6 m). Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) runs a nutrition project in Maiduguri, a protracted emergency setting in North-East Nigeria. This study aimed to explore caregivers' (CGs) and health workers' (HWs) perceptions of BF practice, promotion, and support among CGs with infants <6 m in this setting. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions combined with non-participant observations. Participants included CGs of young infants enrolled in MSF nutritional programs or who attended health promotion activities in a displacement camp. MSF HWs were involved at different levels in BF promotion and support. Data were collected involving a local translator and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis directly from audio recordings. Results: Participants described how feeding practices are shaped by family, community, and traditional beliefs. The perception of breastmilk insufficiency was common and led to early supplementary feeding with inexpensive but unsuitable products. Participants often linked insufficient breastmilk production with poor maternal nutrition and stress, in a context shaped by conflict and food insecurity. BF promotion was generally well received but could be improved if tailored to address specific barriers to exclusive BF. Interviewed CGs positively valued BF support received as part of the comprehensive treatment for infant malnutrition. One of the main challenges identified was the length of stay at the facility. Some participants perceived that improvements in BF were at risk of being lost after discharge if CGs lacked an enabling environment for BF. Conclusion: This study corroborates the strong influence of household and contextual factors on the practice, promotion, and support of BF. Despite identified challenges, the provision of BF support contributes to improvements in BF practice and was positively perceived by CGs in the studied setting. Greater attention should be directed toward providing support and follow-up for infants <6 m and their CGs in the community.
