Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29276620›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, epidemiology and genomics2017

Developing the science and methods of community engagement for genomic research and biobanking in Africa.

P Tindana, M Campbell, P Marshall, K Littler, R Vincent, J Seeley, J de Vries, D Kamuya, H3Africa Community Engagement Working Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, epidemiology and genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Research ethics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Co-creation and engagement in a DNA integrity cohort study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

P TindanaNavrongo Health Research Centre, Ghana Health Service, P.O.Box 114, Navrongo, Ghana.
M CampbellDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.
P MarshallDepartment of Bioethics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-4976, USA.
K LittlerWellcome Trust, Gibbs Building, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, UK.
R VincentFreelance International Development consultant, London, UK.
J SeeleyMRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
J de VriesDepartment of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Office J52-16, UCT Centre for Clinical Research, Old Main Building, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa.
D KamuyaKEMRI/WELLCOME Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
H3Africa Community Engagement Working Group
University of Cape Town · ZACase Western Reserve University · USGhana Health Service · GHKenya Medical Research Institute · KEUganda Virus Research Institute · UGWellcome Trust · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205419/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, community engagement (CE) in research has been implemented in the fields of public health, education and agricultural development. In recent years, international discussions on the ethical and practical goals of CE have been extended to human genomic research and biobanking, particularly in the African context. While there is some consensus on the goals and value of CE generally, questions remain about the effectiveness of CE practices and how to evaluate this. Under the auspices of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), the H3Africa CE working group organized a workshop in Stellenbosch, South Africa in March 2016 to explore the extent to which communities should be involved in genomic research and biobanking and to examine various methods of evaluating the effectiveness of CE. In this paper, we present the key themes that emerged from the workshop and make a case for the development of a rigorous application, evaluation and learning around approaches for CE that promote a more systematic process of engaging relevant communities. We highlight the key ways in which CE should be embedded into genomic research and biobanking projects.

Indexed as

Africabiobankingcommunity engagementevaluationgenomics

Identifiers

PMID29276620
PMCPMC5732574
OpenAlexW2751111689

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.