Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26126899›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Evaluating community engagement in global health research: the need for metrics.

Kathleen M MacQueen, Anant Bhan, Janet Frohlich, Jessica Holzer, Jeremy Sugarman, Ethics Working Group of the HIV Prevention Trials Network

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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

6 authors.

Kathleen M MacQueenSocial and Behavioral Health Sciences, FHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Durham, NC, 27514, USA. kmacqueen@fhi360.org.
Anant BhanBioethics and Global Health, Bhopal/Pune, India. anantbhan@gmail.com.
Janet FrohlichVulindlela Clinical Research Site, CAPRISA, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. janet.frohlich@caprisa.org.
Jessica HolzerHofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA. jholzer@gmail.com.
Jeremy SugarmanBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. jsugarman@jhu.edu.
Ethics Working Group of the HIV Prevention Trials Network

Funding

LOC: HIV Prevention Trials NetworkUM1AI068619 · NIAID · FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL · PI Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, RAPHAEL J LANDOVITZ · 2011 to 2026
$779.5M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068619NIAID NIH HHS UM1AI068619
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement in research has gained momentum as an approach to improving research, to helping ensure that community concerns are taken into account, and to informing ethical decision-making when research is conducted in contexts of vulnerability. However, guidelines and scholarship regarding community engagement are arguably unsettled, making it difficult to implement and evaluate. DISCUSSION: We describe normative guidelines on community engagement that have been offered by national and international bodies in the context of HIV-related research, which set the stage for similar work in other health related research. Next, we review the scholarly literature regarding community engagement, outlining the diverse ethical goals ascribed to it. We then discuss practical guidelines that have been issued regarding community engagement. There is a lack of consensus regarding the ethical goals and approaches for community engagement, and an associated lack of indicators and metrics for evaluating success in achieving stated goals. To address these gaps we outline a framework for developing indicators for evaluating the contribution of community engagement to ethical goals in health research. There is a critical need to enhance efforts in evaluating community engagement to ensure that the work on the ground reflects the intentions expressed in the guidelines, and to investigate the contribution of specific community engagement practices for making research responsive to community needs and concerns. Evaluation mechanisms should be built into community engagement practices to guide best practices in community engagement and their replication across diverse health research settings.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationDeveloping CountriesGlobal HealthGoalsHIV InfectionsResidence CharacteristicsBiomedical ResearchConsensusEthics, ResearchGuidelines as TopicHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInternational Cooperation

Identifiers

PMID26126899
PMCPMC4488111

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.