Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31964333›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Using research networks to generate trustworthy qualitative public health research findings from multiple contexts.

Lot Nyirenda, Meghan Bruce Kumar, Sally Theobald, Malabika Sarker, Musonda Simwinga, Moses Kumwenda, Cheryl Johnson, Karin Hatzold, Elizabeth L Corbett, Euphemia Sibanda and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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. 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

11 authors.

Lot NyirendaLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK. lot.nyirenda@lstmed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1398-5454
Meghan Bruce KumarLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Sally TheobaldLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Malabika SarkerBRAC James P. Grant School of Public Health, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Musonda SimwingaZambia AIDS Related Tuberculosis Project, Lusaka, Zambia.
Moses KumwendaMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust, Blantyre, Malawi.
Cheryl JohnsonWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Karin HatzoldPopulation Services International, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Elizabeth L CorbettMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust, Blantyre, Malawi.
Euphemia SibandaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV AIDS Research Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Miriam TaegtmeyerDepartment of International Public Health, LSTM, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 200901/Z/16/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualitative research networks (QRNs) bring together researchers from diverse contexts working on multi-country studies. The networks may themselves form a consortium or may contribute to a wider research agenda within a consortium with colleagues from other disciplines. The purpose of a QRN is to ensure robust methods and processes that enable comparisons across contexts. Under the Self-Testing Africa (STAR) initiative and the REACHOUT project on community health systems, QRNs were established, bringing together researchers across countries to coordinate multi-country qualitative research and to ensure robust methods and processes allowing comparisons across contexts. QRNs face both practical challenges in facilitating this iterative exchange process across sites and conceptual challenges interpreting findings between contexts. This paper distils key lessons and reflections from both QRN experiences on how to conduct trustworthy qualitative research across different contexts with examples from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Indonesia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

methodsThe process of generating evidence for this paper followed a thematic analysis method: themes initially identified were refined during several rounds of discussions in an iterative process until final themes were agreed upon in a joint learning process.

resultsFour guiding principles emerged from our analysis: a) explicit communication strategies that sustain dialogue and build trust and collective reflexivity; b) translation of contextually embedded concepts; c) setting parameters for contextualizing, and d) supporting empirical and conceptual generalisability. Under each guiding principle, we describe how credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability can be enhanced and share good practices to be considered by other researchers.

conclusionsQualitative research is often context-specific with tools designed to explore local experiences and understandings. Without efforts to synthesise and systematically share findings, common understandings, experiences and lessons are missed. The logistical and conceptual challenges of qualitative research across multiple partners and contexts must be actively managed, including a shared commitment to continuous 'joint learning' by partners. Clarity and agreement on concepts and common methods and timelines at an early stage is critical to ensure alignment and focus in intercountry qualitative research and analysis processes. Building good relationships and trust among network participants enhance the quality of qualitative research findings.

Indexed as

Intersectoral CollaborationQualitative ResearchBangladeshBiomedical ResearchCommunicationEthiopiaHumansIndonesiaKenyaMalawiMozambiquePublic HealthResearch PersonnelZambiaZimbabweGeneralisable researchQualitative researchResearch good practicesResearch guiding principlesResearch networksTrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID31964333
PMCPMC6975029

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.