Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25875485›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

What makes community engagement effective?: Lessons from the Eliminate Dengue Program in Queensland Australia.

Pamela A Kolopack, Janet A Parsons, James V Lavery

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Factors influencing community engagement approaches used in Aedes aegypti management in Cairns, Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

6 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pamela A KolopackCentre for Ethical, Social, and Cultural Risk, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Janet A ParsonsLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Applied Health Research Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
James V LaveryCentre for Ethical, Social, and Cultural Risk, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
St. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorldwide, more than 40% of the population is at risk from dengue and recent estimates suggest that up to 390 million dengue infections are acquired every year. The Eliminate Dengue (ED) Program is investigating the use of Wolbachia-infected, transmission-compromised, mosquitoes to reduce dengue transmission. Previous introductions of genetically-modified strategies for dengue vector control have generated controversy internationally by inadequately engaging host communities. Community Engagement (CE) was a key component of the ED Program's initial open release trials in Queensland Australia. Their approach to CE was perceived as effective by the ED team's senior leadership, members of its CE team, and by its funders, but if and why this was the case was unclear. We conducted a qualitative case study of the ED Program's approach to CE to identify and critically examine its components, and to explain whether and how these efforts contributed to the support received by stakeholders. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants with a range of experiences and perspectives related to the ED Program's CE activities. Our analytic approach combined techniques of grounded theory and qualitative description. The ED Program's approach to CE reflected four foundational features: 1) enabling conditions; 2) leadership; 3) core commitments and guiding values; and 4) formative social science research. These foundations informed five key operational practices: 1) building the CE team; 2) integrating CE into management practices; 3) discerning the community of stakeholders; 4) establishing and maintaining a presence in the community; and 5) socializing the technology and research strategy. We also demonstrate how these practices contributed to stakeholders' willingness to support the trials. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our case study has identified, and explained the functional relationships among, the critical features of the ED Program's approach to CE. It has also illuminated how these features were meaningful to stakeholders and contributed to garnering support within the host communities for the open-release trials. Our findings reveal how translating ethical intentions into effective action is more socially complex than is currently reflected in the CE literature. Because our case study delineates the critical features of the ED Program's approach to CE, it can serve as a framework for other programs to follow when designing their own strategies. And because the findings outline a theory of change for CE, it can also serve as a starting point for developing an evaluation framework for CE.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsAdultAustraliaDengueFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMosquito ControlPublic OpinionQueenslandWolbachia

Identifiers

PMID25875485
PMCPMC4395388
OpenAlexW2147831648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.