Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30135617›Full record

ArticleEducational action research2017

Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization.

Tineke A Abma, Tina Cook, Margaretha Rämgård, Elisabeth Kleba, Janet Harris, Nina Wallerstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational action research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mobilising Knowledge for General Practice Decarbonisation: Maximising Impact Through a Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Tineke A AbmaDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tina CookDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Margaretha RämgårdDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elisabeth KlebaDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janet HarrisDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nina WallersteinDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Family Listening Program: Multi-Tribal Implementation and EvaluationR01DA037174 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI BELONE, LORENDA, WALLERSTEIN, NINA B · 2014 to 2018
$3.0M
Enhancing CBPR Practice through Provision of Expert Information SkillsR01NR015241 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI WALLERSTEIN, NINA B · 2015 to 2019
$2.7M
Department of Health KMRF-2014-03-003NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA037174NINR NIH HHS R01 NR015241
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social impact, defined as an effect on society, culture, quality of life, community services, or public policy beyond academia, is widely considered as a relevant requirement for scientific research, especially in the field of health care. Traditionally, in health research, the process of knowledge transfer is rather linear and one-sided and has not recognized and integrated the expertise of practitioners and those who use services. This can lead to discrimination or disqualification of knowledge and epistemic injustice. Epidemic injustice is a situation wherein certain kinds of knowers and knowledge are not taken seriously into account to define a situation. The purpose of our article is to explore how health researchers can achieve social impact for a wide audience, involving them in a non-linear process of joint learning on urgent problems recognized by the various stakeholders in public health. In participatory health research impact is not preordained by one group of stakeholders, but the result of a process of reflection and dialog with multiple stakeholders on what counts as valuable outcomes. This knowledge mobilization and winding pathway embarked upon during such research have the potential for impact along the way as opposed to the expectation that impact will occur merely at the end of a research project. We will discuss and illustrate the merits of taking a negotiated, discursive and flexible pathway in the area of community-based health promotion.

Indexed as

action researchhealthhealth researchknowledgemobilizationparticipatorypromotionSocial impacttransfer

Identifiers

PMID30135617
PMCPMC6101044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.