BackgroundHigh quality health systems research (HSR) in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) is essential to guiding the policies and programmes that will improve access to health services and, ultimately, health outcomes. Yet, conducting HSR in FCAS is challenging. An understanding of these challenges is essential to tackling them and to supporting research conducted in these complex environments. Led by the Thematic Working Group on Health Systems in FCAS, the primary aim of this study was to develop a research agenda on HSR in FCAS. The secondary aim was to identify the challenges associated with conducting HSR in these contexts. This paper presents these challenges.MethodsGuided by a purposely-selected steering group, this qualitative study collected respondents’ perspectives through an online survey (n = 61) and a group discussion at the Third Global Symposium on HSR in September 2014 (n = 11). Respondents with knowledge and/or experience of HSR in FCAS were intentionally recruited.ResultsOf those ever involved in HSR in FCAS (45/61, 75%), almost all (98%) experienced challenges in conducting their research. Challenges fall under three broad thematic areas: (1) lack of appropriate support; (2) complex local research environment, including access constraints, weak local research capacity, collaboration challenges and lack of trust in the research process; and (3) limited research application, including rapidly outdated findings and lack of engagement with the research process and results.ConclusionsThis study shows that those familiar with HSR in FCAS face many challenges in gaining support for and in conducting and applying high-quality research. There is a need for more sustainable support, including commitment to and long-term funding of HSR in FCAS; investment in capacity building within FCAS to meet the challenges related to implementation of research in these complex environments; relationship and trust building among stakeholders involved in HSR, particularly between local and international researchers and between researchers and participants; and innovative and flexible approaches to research design and implementation in these insecure and rapidly changing contexts.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0204-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Pregnant persons have received mixed messages regarding whether or not to receive COVID-19 vaccines as limited data are available regarding vaccine safety for pregnant and lactating persons and breastfeeding infants. Objective The aims of this study were to examine pregnant Veteran’s acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, along with perceptions and beliefs regarding vaccine safety and vaccine conspiracy beliefs. Design and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pregnant Veterans enrolled in VA care who were taking part in an ongoing cohort study at 15 VA medical centers between January and May 2021. Main Measures Pregnant Veterans were asked whether they had been offered the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, and whether they chose to accept or refuse it. Additional questions focused on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety and endorsements of vaccine knowledge and conspiracy beliefs. Logistic regression was utilized to examine predictors of acceptance of a vaccine during pregnancy. Key Results Overall, 72 pregnant Veterans were offered a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; over two-thirds (69%) opted not to receive a vaccine. Reasons for not receiving a vaccine included potential effects on the baby (64%), side effects for oneself (30%), and immunity from a past COVID-19 infection (12%). Those who received a vaccine had significantly greater vaccine knowledge and less belief in vaccine conspiracy theories. Greater knowledge of vaccines in general (aOR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.2–2.6) and lower beliefs in vaccine conspiracies (aOR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.6–0.9) were the strongest predictors of acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Conclusions Our study provides important insights regarding pregnant Veterans’ decisions to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, and reasons why they may choose not to accept the vaccine. Given the high endorsement of vaccine conspiracy beliefs, trusted healthcare providers should have ongoing, open discussions about vaccine conspiracy beliefs and provide additional information to dispel these beliefs.

Social support is important for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recovery and emerging literature indicate that social support could increase engagement in PTSD therapy. However, there is a need to understand how and why family involvement can increase treatment engagement to inform strategies used in clinical practice. This study explores how individuals with PTSD and family members of individuals with PTSD experience therapy and how social interactions help or hinder therapy engagement. We interviewed 18 U.S. military veterans who had been referred for psychotherapy for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration and 13 family members and used rapid content analysis to identify themes. We found that engaging in therapy was a family-level decision that participants expected to improve family life. Veterans were motivated to seek treatment to protect their relationships with loved ones. Family members generally encouraged veterans to seek treatment. Specifically, family members who viewed PTSD as a treatable illness versus a static aspect of the veteran's personality expressed positive attitudes about the effectiveness of therapy for reducing symptoms. Veterans whose social networks included individuals with prior military or trauma-related experiences reported that their loved ones possessed more understanding of PTSD and described positive subjective norms around therapy. Family members are often embedded in the therapy process because PTSD has a profound impact on the family. Positive subjective norms for therapy are created by family encouragement and may influence veteran perceptions about the value of treatment. Family members should

Background Integrating family planning into child immunization services may address unmet need for contraception by offering family planning information and services to postpartum women during routine child immunization visits. However, policies and programs promoting integration are often based on insubstantial or conflicting evidence about its effects on service delivery and health outcomes. While integration models vary, many studies measure integration as binary (a facility is integrated or not) rather than a multidimensional and varying continuum. It is thus challenging to ascertain the determinants and effects of integrated service delivery. This study creates Facility and Provider Integration Indexes, which measure capacity to support integrated family planning and child immunization services and applies them to analyze the extent of integration across 400 health facilities. Methods This study utilizes cross-sectional health facility (N = 400; 58% hospitals, 42% primary healthcare centers) and healthcare provider (N = 1479) survey data that were collected in six urban areas of Nigeria for the impact evaluation of the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative. Principal Component Analysis was used to develop Provider and Facility Integration Indexes that estimate the extent of integration in these health facilities. The Provider Integration Index measures provider skills and practices that support integrated service delivery while the Facility Integration Index measures facility norms that support integrated service delivery. Index scores range from zero (low) to ten (high). Results Mean Provider Integration Index score is 5.42 (SD 3.10), and mean Facility Integration Index score is 6.22 (SD 2.72). Twenty-three percent of facilities were classified as having low Provider Integration scores, 32% as medium, and 45% as high. Fourteen percent of facilities were classified as having low Facility Integration scores, 38% as medium, and 48% as high. Conclusion Many facilities in our sample have achieved high levels of integration, while many others have not. Results suggest that using more nuanced measures of integration may (a) more accurately reflect true variation in integration within and across health facilities, (b) enable more precise measurement of the determinants or effects of integration, and (c) provide more tailored, actionable information about how best to improve integration. Overall, results reinforce the importance of utilizing more nuanced measures of facility-level integration.

Abstract Background: Integrating family planning into child immunization services may address unmet need for contraception by offering family planning information and services to postpartum women during routine child immunization visits. However, policies and programs promoting integration are often based on insubstantial or conflicting evidence about its effects on service delivery and health outcomes. Since most studies measure integration as binary (a facility is integrated or not) rather than a multidimensional and varying continuum, it is difficult to understand the determinants and effects of integration. This study creates Facility and Provider Integration Indexes, which measure capacity to support integrated family planning and child immunization services, and applies them to analyze the extent of integration across 400 health facilities. Methods: This study utilizes cross-sectional health facility (N= 400; 49% hospitals, 51% primary healthcare centers) and healthcare provider (N= 1,479) survey data that were collected in six urban areas of Nigeria for the impact evaluation of the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative. Principal Components Analysis was used to develop Provider and Facility Integration Indexes that estimate the extent of integration in these health facilities. The Provider Integration Index measures provider skills and practices that support integrated service delivery while the Facility Integration Index measures facility norms that support integrated service delivery. Index scores range from zero (low) to ten (high). Results: Mean Provider Integration Index score is 5.42 (SD 3.10), and mean Facility Integration Index score is 6.22 (SD 2.72). Twenty-three percent of facilities were classified as having low Provider Integration scores, 32% as medium, and 45% as high. Fourteen percent of facilities were classified as having low Facility Integration scores, 38% as medium, and 48% as high. Conclusion: Many facilities in our sample have achieved high levels of integration, while many others have not. Results suggest that measuring integration as a binary variable does not (a) reflect the true variation in integration within and across health facilities, (b) enable nuanced measurement of the determinants or effects of integration, or (c) provide tailored, actionable information about how best to improve integration. Overall, results reinforce the importance of utilizing more nuanced measures of facility-level integration.