Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32478109›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Lessons Learned From the Stakeholder Engagement in Research: Application of Spatial Analytical Tools in One Health Problems.

Kaushi S T Kanankege, Nicholas B D Phelps, Heidi M Vesterinen, Kaylee M Errecaborde, Julio Alvarez, Jeffrey B Bender, Scott J Wells, Andres M Perez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Kaushi S T KanankegeDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Nicholas B D PhelpsDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Heidi M VesterinenDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Kaylee M ErrecabordeDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Julio AlvarezCentro de Vigilancia Sanitaria Veterinaria (VISAVET), Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Jeffrey B BenderEnvironmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Scott J WellsDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Andres M PerezDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement in research is widely advocated as a tool to integrate diverse knowledge and perspectives in the management of health threats while addressing potential conflicts of interest. Although guidelines for stakeholder engagement exist in public health and environmental sciences, the feasibility of actionable decisions based on scientific analyses and the lessons learned from the stakeholder engagement in the process co-creation of knowledge have been rarely discussed in One Health literature and veterinary sciences. Risk maps and risk regionalization using spatiotemporal epidemiological/analytical tools are known to improve risk perception and communication. Risk maps are useful when informing policy and management decisions on quarantine, vaccination, and surveillance intended to prevent or control threats to human, animal, or environmental health interface (i.e., One Health). We hypothesized that researcher-stakeholder engagement throughout the research process could enhance the utility of risk maps; while identifying opportunities to improve data collection, analysis, interpretation, and, ultimately, implementation of scientific/evidence-based management and policy measures. Three case studies were conducted to test this process of co-creation of scientific knowledge, using spatiotemporal epidemiological approaches, all related to One Health problems affecting Minnesota. Our interpretation of the opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned from the process are summarized from both researcher and stakeholder perspectives. By sharing our experience we intend to provide an understanding of the expectations, realizations, and "good practices" we learned through this slow-moving iterative process of co-creation of knowledge. We hope this contribution benefits the planning of future transdisciplinary research related to risk map-based management of One Health problems.

Indexed as

case studiesco-creation of knowledgeepidemiologyone healthrisk communicationrisk mapstransdisciplinary researchveterinary research

Identifiers

PMID32478109
PMCPMC7237577

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.