Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32912247›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

What should community organisations consider when deciding to partner with researchers? A critical reflection on the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha experience in Karnataka, India.

Bridget Pratt, Tanya Seshadri, Prashanth N Srinivas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bridget PrattCentre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St., Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia. bridget.pratt@unimelb.edu.au.
Tanya SeshadriInstitute of Public Health, 3009, II-A Main, 17th Cross, Krishna Rajendra Rd, Banashankari Stage II, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560070, India.
Prashanth N SrinivasInstitute of Public Health, 3009, II-A Main, 17th Cross, Krishna Rajendra Rd, Banashankari Stage II, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560070, India.
Institute of Public Health · INUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DE170100414DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance IA/CPHI/16/1/502648The Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance IA/CPHI/16/1/502648
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity organisations and community members are increasingly being involved in health research projects worldwide as part of the engagement movement. Achieving deeper forms of community engagement like partnership demands that decision-making power be shared with community partners. However, how can community partners assess if meaningful engagement and shared decision-making will be possible when approached by prospective research partners? In this paper, we explore how community organisations decide to join health research projects when approached by health researchers.

methodsCase study research was undertaken on a health systems research project in Karnataka, India called Participation for Local Action, which was carried out by local researchers in partnership with the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha, a community development organisation. In-depth interviews were conducted with the researchers, Sangha leaders and field investigators from their community.

resultsThematic analysis identified two main themes - 'context' and 'deciding to engage'. The Sangha's experience offers lessons to other community organisations that can help them when deciding to engage with researchers in terms of what features to look for in research partners and in proposed research projects, what requests to make of prospective research partners, and what sorts of outcomes or partnership agreements to accept. These lessons may be especially applicable in contexts where relationships of trust already exist between partners and where they have the skills to lead data collection and analysis.

conclusionsWe hope that this guidance will help empower community organisations to select good research partners and promote more equitable partnerships between community partners and academic researchers.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorHumansIndiaProspective StudiesResearch Personnelcollaborationcommunity organisationengagementethicshealth researchhealth systems researchpartnershippower

Identifiers

PMID32912247
PMCPMC7488535
OpenAlexW3086802998

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.