Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32345582›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

The promise and pitfalls of social science research in an emergency: lessons from studying the Zika epidemic in Brazil, 2015-2016.

Maria Joana Passos, Gustavo Matta, Tereza Maciel Lyra, Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira, Hannah Kuper, Loveday Penn-Kekana, Mila Mendonça

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Joana PassosAbraço a microcefalia, Salvador, Brazil.
Gustavo MattaEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Tereza Maciel LyraAggeu Magalhães Institute, FIOCRUZ/PE, Recife, Brazil.
Maria Elisabeth Lopes MoreiraFernando Figueira Maternal and Children's Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Hannah KuperInternational Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Hannah.Kuper@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8952-0023
Loveday Penn-KekanaInfectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Mila MendonçaAbraço a microcefalia, Salvador, Brazil.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública · BRFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRInstituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira · BR

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205377/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social science generates evidence necessary to control epidemics. It can help to craft appropriate public health responses, develop solutions to the epidemic impacts and improve understanding of why the epidemic occurred. Yet, there are practical constraints in undertaking this international research in a way that produces quality, ethical and appropriate data, and that values all voices and experiences, especially those of local researchers and research participants. In this paper, we reflected on the experience of undertaking social science research during the 2015/2016 Zika epidemic in Brazil. This experience was considered from the perspective of this paper's authors: three Brazilian academics, two UK academics and two mothers of children affected by congenital Zika syndrome. This group came together through the conduct of the Social and Economic Impact of Zika study, a mixed-methods social science study. The key findings highlight practical issues in the achievement of three goals: the conduct of high-quality social science in emergencies and efforts towards the decolonisation of global health in terms of levelling the power between Brazilian and UK researchers and optimising the role of patients within research. From our perspective, the information collected through social science was valuable, providing detailed insight into the programmatic needs of mothers and their affected children (eg, economic and social support and mental health services). Social science was considered a low priority within the Zika epidemic despite its potential importance. There were logistical challenges in conducting social science research, foremost of which are the difficulties in developing a trusting and balanced power relationship between the UK and Brazilian researchers in a short time frame. When these issues were overcome, each partner brought unique qualities, making the research stronger. The mothers of affected children expressed dissatisfaction with research, as they were involved in many studies which were not coordinated, and from which they did not see a benefit. In conclusion, the importance of social science in epidemics must continue to be promoted by funders. Funders can also set in place mechanisms to help equalise the power dynamics between foreign and local researchers, researchers and participants, both to promote justice and to create best quality data.

Indexed as

EpidemicsZika VirusZika Virus InfectionBrazilChildEmergenciesHumansSocial Sciencescontrol strategieshealth policies and all other topicshealth services researchprevention strategiespublic health

Identifiers

PMID32345582
PMCPMC7213811
OpenAlexW3019314983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.