Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029283›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2015

Disseminating results: community response and input on Kisumu breastfeeding study.

K Ondenge, E McLellan-Lemal, E Awuonda, F Angira, L A Mills, T Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Engagement of community stakeholders to develop a framework to guide research dissemination to communities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

K OndengeKenya Medical Research Institute, Center for Global Health Research, P.O. Box 1578, Kisumu, 40100 Kenya.
E McLellan-LemalCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Infectious Diseases, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Atlanta, GA USA.
E AwuondaKenya Medical Research Institute, Center for Global Health Research, P.O. Box 1578, Kisumu, 40100 Kenya.
F AngiraKenya Medical Research Institute, Center for Global Health Research, P.O. Box 1578, Kisumu, 40100 Kenya.
L A MillsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Kisumu, Kenya.
T ThomasCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Infectious Diseases, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Atlanta, GA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communicating findings to study participants and their communities is a practice that often gets overlooked or receives low prioritization by research investigators, but is crucially important. The purpose of this study was to describe the process and community response to the dissemination of results from the Kisumu Breastfeeding Study (KiBS), specifically in terms of (1) community research knowledge and expectations and (2) impressions of result dissemination efforts. A qualitative evaluation was completed for 10 result dissemination events using focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 10; total number of participants = 98). An inductive, thematic qualitative data analysis was completed in NVivo 8.0. Overall, FGD participants expressed great appreciation for being given information on the study results. Participants had a good understanding of what research entails and had specific expectations for the process, including that the community receive information about the study, not only at the end of the study but also at regular intervals throughout the study's conduct. They also wanted to receive the communications from a credible source, the principal investigator preferably. Other expectations centered on better community and research interactions and development and the use of community collaborators. Impressions of KiBS result dissemination events were positive, but suggestions for the future included having the event in a larger area, inviting more people, having more written materials, and putting the information in an entertaining format such as skits or movies. Sharing study findings with local community members is essential and beneficial to the researchers' long-term engagement with communities and importantly, the successful implementation of study findings when appropriate. It is imperative that dissemination of results be embedded as an integral part of research project planning and development.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsCommunity feedbackDisseminationFGDsKiBSStudy results

Identifiers

PMID26029283
PMCPMC4444705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.