SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2019
A typology of community and stakeholder engagement based on documented examples in the field of novel vector control.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Evaluating urban community knowledge, attitudes, and preventive actions (KAP) using the health belief model: Insights from an ideation-informed interpretation of recurrent dengue outbreaks in Selangor, Malaysia.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Manipulating the Destiny of Wild Populations Using CRISPR.Annual review of genetics · 2023Review
- What is known about what works in community-involved decision-making relating to urban green and blue spaces? A realist review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Operationalizing stakeholder engagement for gene drive research in malaria elimination in Africa-translating guidance into practice.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- California Residents' Perceptions of Gene Drive Systems to Control Mosquito-Borne Disease.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Hurdles in responsive community engagement for the development of environmental biotechnologies.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2022Review
- 'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- School and community driven dengue vector control and monitoring in Myanmar: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Oxitec and MosquitoMate in the United States: lessons for the future of gene drive mosquito control.Pathogens and global health · 2021Article
- Combating mosquito-borne diseases using genetic control technologies.Nature communications · 2021Review
- Suppression of female fertility inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Interdisciplinary development of a standardized introduction to gene drives for lay audiences.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite broad consensus on the importance of community and stakeholder engagement (CSE) for guiding the development, regulation, field testing, and deployment of emerging vector control technologies (such as genetically engineered insects), the types of activities pursued have varied widely, as have the outcomes. We looked to previous CSE efforts for clarity about appropriate methods and goals. Our analysis yielded a typology of CSE, and related vocabulary, that describes distinctions that funders, organizers, and scholars should make when proposing or evaluating CSE.
methodsWe compiled available formal documentation of CSE projects, starting with projects mentioned in interviews with 17 key informants. Major features of these examples, including the initiators, target groups, timing, goals, and methods were identified using qualitative coding. Based on these examples, subcategories were developed for a subset of features and applied to the identified cases of CSE in the documents. Co-occurrence of subcategorized features was examined for patterns.
resultsWe identified 14 documented examples CSE projects, which were comprised of 28 distinct CSE activities. We found no clear patterns with respect to timing. However, we found that grouping examples according to whether initiators or targets could enact the immediate desired outcome could help to clarify relationships between goals, methods, and targets.
conclusionBased on this analysis, we propose a typology that distinguishes three categories of CSE: engagement to inquire -where initiators are empowered to act on information collected through engagement with target groups; engagement to influence -where initiators engage to affect the actions of already-empowered target groups; and engagement to involve -where initiators engage to delegate authority to target groups. The proposed typology can serve as a guide for establishing the goals, identifying appropriate methods, and evaluating and reporting CSE projects by directing attention to important questions to be asked well before determining who to engage and how.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.