How is the implementation of empirical research results documented in conflict-affected settings? Findings from a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.

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.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the utilization and provision of essential health care services from 2019 to 2020 in the primary health care network in Lebanon? Results from a nationwide representative cross-sectional survey.

There is limited research soliciting the patient and staff perspectives on the overall effects of COVID-19 on the utilization and provision of primary care in Lebanon. The present study was part of a larger study on the overall effect of COVID-19 on both utilization and provision of essential health care services within the Lebanese primary health care network (PHCN). Here, we present the patient and staff perspectives on continuity of service provision, adherence to infection prevention and control measures, and the role of the PHCN in epidemic preparedness and response. We conducted a cross-sectional survey between June and July 2021 among patients who had received a health care service in 2019 or 2020 from registered primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in the network and among the respective PHC staff working during the same period. A total of 763 patients and 198 staff completed the surveys. Services were reported as interrupted by 15% of the total patients who used services either in 2020 only or in both 2019 and 2020. Access to chronic (67%) and acute medications (40%) were reported as the main interrupted services. Immunization also emerged as a foregone service in 2020. Among the staff, one third (33%) reported interruptions in the provision of services. Financial barriers rather than fear of COVID-19 were reported as main reasons for interruption. Both groups considered that the facilities implemented adequate infection prevention and control measures. They perceived that the PHCN maintained some essential healthcare services and that it should have played a bigger role in the response to the pandemic. There was a continuity in utilization and provision of services in the PHCN that was higher than expected, with non-communicable diseases and immunizations suffering more than other services.

Do we really want to know? The journey to implement empirical research recommendations in the ICRC's responses in Myanmar and Lebanon.

Efforts to reduce the gap between the research evidence base and humanitarian responses have focused on producing quality evidence and ensuring its use in decision-making. Yet, how evidence translates into field-level implementation is not well understood in humanitarian contexts. This study analysed how recommendations produced through academic research partnerships were implemented by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Lebanon and Myanmar. The methodology included: social network analysis to represent collective dynamics; document reviews to assess implementation; qualitative interviews to comprehend why actors engaged; and a critical appraisal of these combined results. The application of Extended Normalization Process Theory provided information on 'anticipation of constraints' (access to information, staff turnover, context specificity, and the need to engage as a cohesive group). Future research efforts should concentrate explicitly on identifying and tackling implementation barriers such as power imbalances and ethical dilemmas related to service delivery by humanitarian actors.

Working short and working long: can primary healthcare be protected as a public good in Lebanon today?

In this commentary we propose four questions to be addressed while building a meaningful public primary healthcare response in Lebanon today. These questions emerge from two imperatives: the necessity to consider both short- and longer-term struggles in a context of protracted conflict and the need to protect public health as a public good whilst the public Primary Healthcare Network (PHCN) is facing the Covid19 pandemic. In order to identify how these questions are related to the need to be working short and long, we look at the imprints left by past and present shocks. Profound shocks of the past include the Lebanese civil war and the Syrian refugee crisis. We analyse how these shocks have resulted in the PHCN developing resilience mechanisms in order to ensure a space for healthcare provision that stands public in Lebanon today. Then, we consider how two present shocks -- the economic breakdown and the blast of ammonium nitrate in Beirut port -- are affecting and threatening the progress made by the PHCN to ensure that primary healthcare remains a public good, a fragile space acquired with difficulty in the past half century. We identify what questions emerge from the combined consequences of such traumas, when the immediate constraints of the present meet the impediments of the past. We consider what such questions mean more broadly, for the people living in Lebanon today, and for the PHCN ability to respond to the Covid 19 pandemic in a relevant way. Our hypothesis is that in a protracted conflict, such as the one defining the circumstances of Lebanon now, public access to primary healthcare might persist for the people as one safeguard, in which social and moral continuity can be anchored to protect a sense of public good.

Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?

In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create balanced decision-making mechanisms, allow for relative financial autonomy, and define organizational responsibilities. Ultimately, mutual respect, trust and the recognition of each other's expertise formed the basis of an initiative that served to better understand populations affected by conflict and meet their needs.

Utilization of primary health care services among Syrian refugee and Lebanese women targeted by the ICRC program in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Syrian crisis has put tremendous strain on the Lebanese health system, particularly in the historically underserved border region. The ICRC Primary Health Care program has focused on refugee and host communities in these areas. This study objectives were: 1) to determine whether the ICRC program was reaching the most vulnerable populations; 2) to understand the key perceived health needs in the catchment areas of the ICRC supported facilities; and 3) to identify barriers to utilization of health care services. METHODS: Between July and September 2017 we conducted two cross-sectional studies - one randomized household survey and one clinic-based - in the catchment areas of three ICRC-supported facilities, targeting women of reproductive age and caretakers of children under five. Differences between groups were analysed with t-test or chi-squared test. RESULTS: In the household survey, similar socio-demographic profiles were observed between Syrian refugee women and vulnerable Lebanese hosts. With regard to the study objectives:The most vulnerable populations were those seen in the ICRC-supported facilities.For both populations, the most common reasons for seeking care were non-communicable diseases (40.6%) and sexual and reproductive health issues (28.6%). Yet the people reaching the ICRC supported facilities were more likely to seek care for communicable diseases affecting their children (37.8%), rather than for the most common reasons expressed in the household survey.In the catchment areas, reported gaps included low immunization coverage and low levels of antenatal care and family planning both for Syrian and Lebanese. Dental care also emerged as an issue. Out of pocket expenditures was reported as a critical barrier for utilization of primary health care services for both populations, while the most important barrier for utilization of ICRC-supported services was lack of awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ICRC reaching the most vulnerable Syrian and Lebanese communities, the population-based survey revealed that important gaps exist in terms of utilization of health care services among women of reproductive age and their children. A stronger outreach component is needed to address lack of awareness. Innovative solutions are also needed to address cost barriers at the levels of both facility and individual user.