Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30661464›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2019

Decolonising research methodologies: lessons from a qualitative research project, Cape Town, South Africa.

Mpoe Johannah Keikelame, Leslie Swartz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

2 authors.

Mpoe Johannah Keikelamea Department of Psychology , Stellenbosch University , Cape Town , South Africa.
Leslie Swartza Department of Psychology , Stellenbosch University , Cape Town , South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1741-5897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is becoming increasingly important for researchers to critically reflect on approaches that can have a positive impact on the health outcomes of indigenous people. Such issues are of great importance and perhaps of special relevance to researchers in the Global South, and to the African context in which we work.

objectiveTo share some lessons learned from our fieldwork to contribute to current knowledge and conversations on decolonising research process.

methodsWe used an African lens to critically reflect upon some issues raised from individual interviews and focus group discussions with our participants which we deem to be important for consideration in a decolonising research process.

resultsThe major issues that we raise are about important structures such as power, trust, cultural competence, respectful and legitimate research practice and recognition of individual and communities' health assets in a decolonising research process.

conclusionsOur paper argues for alternative approaches which are culturally appropriate for health research and for improved health outcomes of marginalised groups. In addition, we argue that participatory and transformative research methods which recognises individual and communities' assets are needed. We hope that the lessons that we share in this paper can contribute towards a respectful and good research practice among the marginalised population groups in our context.

Indexed as

Cultural CompetencyPublic HealthResearch DesignTrustDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicPopulation GroupsQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSouth Africaculture and cultural competencyIndigenouspowertrust

Identifiers

PMID30661464
PMCPMC6346712

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.