ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012
'You give us rangoli, we give you talk': using an art-based activity to elicit data from a seldom heard group.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators for engaging underrepresented ethnic minority populations in healthcare research: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Reflections on public involvement: learning from a personalised balance training intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Protection from "any kind of risk" - a qualitative study exploring young women's experiences of safer sex in Canada.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Image-Based Communication for Strengthening Patient Health Education in Rural and Underserved Settings.Cureus · 2023Article
- The art of Patient and Public Involvement: exploring ways to research and reduce air pollution through art-based community workshops - a reflective paper.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Engaging citizens living in vulnerable circumstances in research: a narrative review using a systematic search.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Review
- Dementia Caregiving Research: Expanding and Reframing the Lens of Diversity, Inclusivity, and Intersectionality.The Gerontologist · 2020Article
- Including 'seldom heard' views in research: opportunities, challenges and recommendations from focus groups with British South Asian people with type 2 diabetes.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Inside, outside and in-between: The process and impact of co-producing knowledge about autism in a UK Somali community.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Intersectionality in the Liminal Space: Researching Caribbean Women's Health in the UK Context.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Article
- An Assets-Based Approach to Co-Producing a Culturally Adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) with African Caribbeans Diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Their Families.Ethnicity & disease · 2018Article
- Raising the issue of overweight and obesity with the South Asian community.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe exclusion from health research of groups most affected by poor health is an issue not only of poor science, but also of ethics and social justice. Even if exclusion is inadvertent and unplanned, policy makers will be uninformed by the data and experiences of these groups. The effect on the allocation of resources is likely to be an exacerbation of health inequalities. DISCUSSION: We subject to critical analysis the notion that certain groups, by virtue of sharing a particular identity, are inaccessible to researchers - a phenomenon often problematically referred to as 'hard to reach'. We use the term 'seldom heard' to move the emphasis from a perceived innate characteristic of these groups to a consideration of the methods we choose as researchers. Drawing on a study exploring the intersections of faith, culture, health and food, we describe a process of recruitment, data collection and analysis in which we sought to overcome barriers to participation. As we were interested in the voices of South Asian women, many of whom are largely invisible in public life, we adopted an approach to data collection which was culturally in tune with the women's lives and values. A collaborative activity mirroring food preparation provided a focus for talk and created an environment conducive to data collection. We discuss the importance of what we term 'shoe leather research' which involves visiting the local area, meeting potential gatekeepers, and attending public events in order to develop our profile as researchers in the community. We examine issues of ethics, data quality, management and analysis which were raised by our choice of method. SUMMARY: In order to work towards a more theoretical understanding of how material, social and cultural factors are connected and influence each other in ways that have effects on health, researchers must attend to the quality of the data they collect to generate finely grained and contextually relevant findings. This in turn will inform the design of culturally sensitive health care services. To achieve this, researchers need to consider methods of recruitment; the makeup of the research team; issues of gender, faith and culture; and data quality, management and analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.