Overview of Findings

This prioritisation exercise reveals five main themes: 

1. Service delivery and implementation dominate. Across nearly all domains, the research priorities point toward service delivery challenges rather than the efficacy of specific interventions. Whether in Comprehensive Sexuality Education, SRHR and mental health, abortion care or climate resilience, the emphasis lies on how to make existing interventions reach people in humanitarian contexts. Questions addressed delivery channels, provider roles, supervision and mechanisms for ensuring uptake under conditions of legal restriction, crisis or systemic disruption. 

2. Focus on underserved and hard-to-reach groups. A strong equity theme runs through the dataset. Respondents consistently prioritised strategies that improve access for displaced populations, people-on-the-move, adolescents, people living with disabilities and those facing legal or cultural barriers to care. Questions often explored how to tailor delivery models to out-of-school adolescents, refugee populations or those with intersecting vulnerabilities. 

3. Building resilient systems and provider capacity. Across domains, respondents highlighted a need to strengthen SRHR systems and build frontline capacity. This includes sustained Community Health Worker training, task-sharing for abortion and digital supervision platforms for the clinical management of rape, and strategies for service continuity during pandemics and climate events. Questions also reflected demand for resilient infrastructure and adaptable workforces able to respond flexibly to future crises. 

4. Close clustering of scores indicates broad interest rather than dominant winners. Although each domain has a top-ranked question, the gap between first and third is usually just a few points on the 0-to-100 scale. Interquartile ranges and Standard Deviations are often wide, indicating that respondents saw value in multiple research options. It is often difficult to distinguish between ranks beyond the first few, suggesting that many questions warrant parallel investment. This aligns with the breadth of the long list, which drew from extensive expert consultation and regional engagement.

5. SRHR research priorities are highly context-dependent. Regional analyses revealed both convergence and divergence across domains, reflecting the influence of differing humanitarian realities, health-system capacities, and legal or policy environments. For example, regional variation appeared in the comprehensive sexuality education domain. Respondents in Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Central Asia gave greater weight to generating evidence on gender-transformative and rights-based approaches, whereas those in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa prioritised questions on delivery feasibility, community engagement, and inclusivity within existing programme structures. Future SRHR research should therefore be grounded in local realities, addressing region-specific barriers, governance arrangements, and population needs rather than assuming global priorities can be uniformly applied.