Conducting implementation research during the war in Ukraine: what it takes to produce evidence
Abstract
Background: Implementation of evidence-based programs in conflict-affected settings is crucial to support affected populations уеt faces significant contextual challenges, as does the research practice aimed at producing this evidence. While the importance of documentation of implementation challenges is recognized, less attention has been paid to the conduct of research itself in extreme contexts, particularly when led by insider researchers who live and work in these settings.
Methods: The ongoing study encompasses three phases: a narrative literature review exploring research practice in conflict-induced humanitarian settings; qualitative interviews examining research conduct and interventions implementation during the war in Ukraine; and the development of a theoretical framework to guide the meta-implementation research in conflict-affected contexts.
Results: The results of the narrative literature review highlighted the dual role of trust in the research conduct process: a precondition for conducting research and a result shaped by the research process itself; these insights may enhance the understanding of implementation research practice. Preliminary insights from initial data collection with insider researchers suggest substantial personal and professional investments to conduct and sustain the research in wartime: continuous adaptation due to disruptions, negotiations of dual identities as Ukrainian researchers and war-affected citizens, and large efforts to maintain scientific rigour when basic needs are unmet due to insecurity.
Conclusions: Given the prevalence of armed conflicts globally, this study advances implementation science by foregrounding trust as an essential element of conducting research in extreme settings and by acknowledging the personal and professional toll on insider researchers. Thus, we further argue that a theoretical framework to guide meta-implementation research is urgently needed to support practice in extreme settings.
Key messages: • The research conduct in wartime requires significant personal and professional investments from the insider researchers.
• The study findings on how to translate “research into practice” can enrich implementation science theoretical approaches and inform practice to produce credible and trustworthy knowledge.
Related
- Conducting ethical drug research in prisons: lessons learnt from the implementation of the European Questionnaire on Drug use among People living in Prison (EQDP)
- L.8. Scientific session: Conducting Mental Health Research in Crisis: Lessons from Ukraine for Resilient Public Health
- Conducting a RCT during wartime in Ukraine: methodological implications and lessons learnt
- Blind spots: The hidden challenges of conducting multisite intervention research.
- Modernizing Electronic Evidence Protocols in Ukraine's Criminal Justice System: A Strategic Path Forward
BibTeX
@article{kachai2026conducting,
title = {{Conducting implementation research during the war in Ukraine: what it takes to produce evidence}},
author = {V Kachai and V Chernobrovkina and CR May},
journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1977},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1977},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Conducting implementation research during the war in Ukraine: what it takes to produce evidence
AU - V Kachai
AU - V Chernobrovkina
AU - CR May
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - The European Journal of Public Health
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1977
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1977
AB - Background: Implementation of evidence-based programs in conflict-affected settings is crucial to support affected populations уеt faces significant contextual challenges, as does the research practice aimed at producing this evidence. While the importance of documentation of implementation challenges is recognized, less attention has been paid to the conduct of research itself in extreme contexts, particularly when led by insider researchers who live and work in these settings. Methods: The ongoing study encompasses three phases: a narrative literature review exploring research practice in conflict-induced humanitarian settings; qualitative interviews examining research conduct and interventions implementation during the war in Ukraine; and the development of a theoretical framework to guide the meta-implementation research in conflict-affected contexts. Results: The results of the narrative literature review highlighted the dual role of trust in the research conduct process: a precondition for conducting research and a result shaped by the research process itself; these insights may enhance the understanding of implementation research practice. Preliminary insights from initial data collection with insider researchers suggest substantial personal and professional investments to conduct and sustain the research in wartime: continuous adaptation due to disruptions, negotiations of dual identities as Ukrainian researchers and war-affected citizens, and large efforts to maintain scientific rigour when basic needs are unmet due to insecurity. Conclusions: Given the prevalence of armed conflicts globally, this study advances implementation science by foregrounding trust as an essential element of conducting research in extreme settings and by acknowledging the personal and professional toll on insider researchers. Thus, we further argue that a theoretical framework to guide meta-implementation research is urgently needed to support practice in extreme settings. Key messages: • The research conduct in wartime requires significant personal and professional investments from the insider researchers. • The study findings on how to translate “research into practice” can enrich implementation science theoretical approaches and inform practice to produce credible and trustworthy knowledge.
SN - 1101-1262
SN - 1464-360X
ER -