What makes embedded implementation research work? A multicountry synthesis of Unicef-supported initiatives in low- and middle-income countries

Bibliographic Data

ID23311650
AuthorsASM Shahabuddin (0000-0001-8543-0517, United Nations Children's Fund), Robert Scherpbier (0000-0002-5910-5160, United Nations Children's Fund), Alyssa Sharkey (0000-0001-8491-2880, Princeton University), Muzhgan Haydary (Université de Montréal), Kumanan Rasanathan (0000-0001-9347-1765, World Health Organization), Ann Robins (0000-0001-5886-3878, United Nations Children's Fund), Karin Källander (0000-0002-5778-5780, United Nations Children's Fund)
Year2026
Volume16
Pages04265-04265
Publication date2026-07-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Global Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2047-2978 • E-ISSN: 2047-2986
PublisherInternational Society of Global Health (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.7189/jogh.16.04265
PMID42533633
OpenAlexW7172001531
LanguageEN
References cited26

Introduction: Embedded implementation research (EIR) integrates research within health programmes to address delivery bottlenecks and improve uptake of evidence. While widely promoted, its influence on policy, programme delivery, and service outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains under-documented. We examined how EIR has influenced policy adaptation, programme design, and service delivery outcomes across LMICs where UNICEF has supported EIR initiatives. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional synthesis drawing on survey data, document review, and case analyses of UNICEF-supported EIR projects conducted between 2015 and 2022. The analysis was guided by Proctor's implementation outcomes framework (adaptation, fidelity, sustainability) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore how contextual mechanisms shaped observed outcomes. We included 33 researchers and implementers representing 24 completed EIR projects from 11 countries who participated in an online structured survey (69% response rate). Their responses were triangulated with project reports and UNICEF monitoring documentation. Results: Two-thirds (67%) of projects reported that their findings informed policy or programme adjustments, most commonly through revised immunisation strategies, integration of digital tools, and strengthened community engagement. Half (50%) documented measurable service-delivery improvements, such as increased vaccination coverage and improved routine child health indicators, reflecting greater fidelity to evidence-informed practices. Examples from Pakistan, Malawi, and Ethiopia demonstrated policy adaptation and scaling of interventions derived from EIR evidence. Across projects, early engagement of decision-makers, alignment with programme cycles, and participatory dissemination were key enablers of uptake. Persistent barriers included limited political commitment, competing priorities, and inadequate post-research financing. Conclusions: When co-led by decision-makers, integrated into programme cycles and national coordination structures, embedded implementation research can accelerate the use of evidence and strengthen programme performance. To maximise its potential, future EIR efforts should prioritise sustained political commitment, dedicated financing, and mechanisms for ongoing follow-up and learning to ensure that research findings translate into policy and service-delivery improvements.

Context (archaeology) · Digital health · Fidelity · Implementation research · Knowledge translation · Participatory action research · Psychological intervention · Service delivery framework · Workflow · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Global Maternal and Child Health · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Policy