Lessons learned conducting abortion research in fragile contexts:Reflections from a mixed methods study in Africa (the AMoCo study)

Abstract Background Conducting abortion research in fragile settings presents challenges, many of which are present in other low-resourced settings to various degrees but when appearing all together, collectively served to create a set of barriers to collecting data that required creative adaptations to address and even then, we could not overcome all of them. Results Challenges that we experienced in the course of this mixed methods research project included limited access to the study sites by research team members, research being delayed to prioritize life-saving priorities which must take precedence when resource constraints mean that both cannot be carried out, a population skeptical of participating in research due to having negative experiences with the state/other actors as well as due to being research-naïve, geographic and language constraints impacting participant recruitment because of the fact that people are coming from various displaced locations to a particular health facility, a low literacy population meant that they could not read the consent form and due to the stigmatized subject matter we did not want a family member consenting them, and respondents’ challenges participating around the time of discharge because respondents needed to travel home with family members. Conclusions These strategies are relevant not only to abortion research but also other research in resource-constrained/fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Improving the health of the most vulnerable can only be done through understanding barriers to care in insecure and challenging environments. Recommendations include to plan for offsite and long-distance training, supervision, and quality assurance; attempt to negotiate flexible timelines with donors; hire field staff whose only responsibility is data collection; where possible, find a way to include the most vulnerable members of the study population; adapt informed consent processes for low literacy populations; and consider including travel support for respondents. Iterating improvements in data collection innovations in these contexts will advance the field by spurring more research upon which to base policy and practices.