Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24134352›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of public health2013

Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review.

Lisa Mikesell, Elizabeth Bromley, Dmitry Khodyakov

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Research Ethics Board Membership and Expertise.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nurturing Acceptance for Research in the Community: Conceptualising Engagement Towards Research Through Normalisation Process Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  15. A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  16. Transformative community-engaged science: Strengthening relationships between science and society.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lisa MikesellLisa Mikesell is with the Communication Department, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Elizabeth Bromley is with the Semel Institute Center for Health Services and Society, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, and the Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System. Dmitry Khodyakov is with the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Elizabeth Bromley
Dmitry Khodyakov

Funding

The Impact of Partnerships with Community on Research IntegrityR21ES022093 · NIEHS · RAND CORPORATION · PI BROMLEY, ELIZABETH A, KHODYAKOV, DMITRY · 2012 to 2013
$451k
NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES022093NIEHS NIH HHS R21ES022093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and well-being of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature. We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions of ethics in CBPR, with a focus on the value of the Belmont principles in CBPR, additional essential components of ethical CBPR, the ethical challenges CBPR practitioners face, and strategies to ensure that CBPR meets ethical standards. Our study provides a foundation for developing a working definition and a conceptual model of ethical CBPR.

Indexed as

Public HealthCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID24134352
PMCPMC3828990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.