ArticleBMC medical ethics2020
Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Cancer early detection research priorities in some underrepresented communities: a commentary of the learnings from a community priority setting project.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Perceptions of research participation among underrepresented groups: Insights using freelisting methodology.PloS one · 2026Article
- How to (or how not to)…Enhance equity in the conduct of global health research: dimensions and directions for organizations.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- Tailoring an evidence-based clinical intervention and training package for the treatment and prevention of comorbid heavy drinking and depression in middle-income country settings: the development of the SCALA toolkit in Latin America.Global health action · 2022Article
- Application of the capability approach to Indigenous People's health and well-being: protocol for a mixed-methods scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews.Bulletin of the National Research Centre · 2022Review
- Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- Setting a research agenda to improve community health: An inclusive mixed-methods approach in Northern Uganda.PloS one · 2021Article
- The Aspirations of Measurement for Change.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunities' engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based "ethical toolkit" to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects.
methodsA two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff.
resultsThe conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit's content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described.
conclusionsThe resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting.
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.