ArticleGlobal social welfare : research, policy & practice2014
Systematizing planning and formative phases of HIV prevention research: Case studies from Brazil, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan.
Article in Global social welfare : research, policy & practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Process to Recruit and Select Community Partners for a Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness Study.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2023Article
- HIV Education and Welfare Services in Primary Care: An Empirical Model of Integration in Brazil's Unified Health System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- Recruiting and retaining service agencies and public health providers in longitudinal studies: Implications for community-engaged implementation research.Methodological innovationsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInternational Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is vulnerable to contextual, political, and interpersonal issues that may hamper researchers' abilities to develop and sustain partnerships with local communities. This paper responds to a call for systematizing CBPR practices and to the urgent need for frameworks with potential to facilitate partnership-building between researchers and communities in both "developed" and "developing" countries.
methodsUsing three brief case examples, each from a different context, with different partners and varied research questions, we demonstrate how to apply the International Participatory Research Framework (IPRF).
resultsIPRF consists of triangulated procedures (steps and actions) that can facilitate known participatory outcomes: 1) community-defined research goals, 2) capacity for further research, and 3) policies and programs grounded in research.
conclusionsWe show how the application of this model is particularly helpful in the planning and formative phases of CBPR. Other partnerships can use this framework in its entirety or aspects thereof, in different contexts. Further evaluation of how this framework can help other international partnerships, studying myriad diseases and conditions, should be a focus of future international CBPR.
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.