ArticleProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2012
Community-researcher partnerships at NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials sites: insights for evaluation and enhancement.
Article in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Quantitative Measures of Stakeholder Engagement.Clinical and translational science · 2017Pooled it
- REPRESENTATION AND EXTRAPOLATION: EVIDENCE FROM CLINICAL TRIALSThe quarterly journal of economics · 2024Article
- Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- What Matters to Whom: Patient and Public Involvement in Research.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Addressing diversity and complexity in the community engagement literature: The rationale for a realist review.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
- Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure.Journal of community psychology · 2019Article
- Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Improving Community Advisory Board Engagement in Precision Medicine Research to Reduce Health Disparities.Journal of health disparities research and practice · 2019Article
- Using theory of change frameworks to develop evaluation strategies for research engagement: results of a pre-pilot study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Article
- A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- "A place at the table:" a qualitative analysis of community board members' experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- What makes community engagement effective?: Lessons from the Eliminate Dengue Program in Queensland Australia.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2015Article
- Towards a Science of Community Stakeholder Engagement in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: An Embedded Four-Country Case Study.PloS one · 2015Article
- Implementation of HIV-related clinical research in the international setting.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity engagement has been a cornerstone of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)'s HIV/AIDS clinical trials programs since 1990. Stakeholders now consider this critical to success, hence the impetus to develop evaluation approaches.
objectivesThe purpose was to assess the extent to which community advisory boards (CABs) at HIV/AIDS trials sites are being integrated into research activities.
methodsCABs and research staff (RS) at NIAID research sites were surveyed for how each viewed (a) the frequency of activities indicative of community involvement, (b) the means for identifying, prioritizing, and supporting CAB needs, and (c) mission and operational challenges.
resultsOverall, CABs and RS share similar views about the frequency of community involvement activities. Cluster analysis reveals three groups of sites based on activity frequency ratings, including a group notable for CAB-RS discordance.
conclusionsAssessing differences between community and researcher perceptions about the frequency of and challenges posed by specific engagement activities may prove useful in developing evaluation tools for assessing community engagement in collaborative research settings.
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.