Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34290072›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Engaging communities in non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review protocol.

Sonja Klingberg, Bipin Adhikari, Catherine E Draper, Edna N Bosire, Priscilla Tiigah, Deborah Nyirenda, Ferdinand C Mukumbang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Sonja KlingbergSAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit (DPHRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa sonja.klingberg@wits.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-9330-7102
Bipin AdhikariMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8981-3910
Catherine E DraperSAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit (DPHRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-2885-437X
Edna N BosireSAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit (DPHRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4781-7101
Priscilla TiigahHealth Equity and Strategy Unit, Public Health England, London, UK.
Deborah NyirendaCommunity Engagement and Bioethics, Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.ORCID 0000-0002-5867-4687
Ferdinand C MukumbangDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1441-2172

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEngaging communities and intended beneficiaries at various stages of health research is a recommended practice. The contribution of community engagement to non-communicable disease research in low- and middle-income countries has not yet been extensively studied or synthesised. This protocol describes the steps towards generating an understanding of community engagement in the context of non-communicable disease research, prevention and health promotion using a realist review approach. A realist lens enables a rich explanatory approach to causation while capturing complexity, and an openness to multiple outcomes, including unintended consequences. The review will thus develop an understanding of community engagement without assuming that such practices result in more ethical research or effective interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a realist approach aiming to examine how, why, under what circumstances and for whom community engagement works or does not work. The iterative review steps include clarifying the review scope; searching for evidence; appraising studies and extracting data; synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions; and disseminating, implementing and evaluating the findings. Principles of meta-narrative review (pragmatism, pluralism, historicity, contestation, reflexivity and peer review) are employed to ensure practicable and contextualised review outputs. The proposed review will draw on theoretical and empirical literature beyond specific diseases or settings, but with a focus on informing non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. The synthesis of existing literature will be complemented by qualitative realist interviews and stakeholder consultation. Through drawing on multiple types of evidence and input from both experts and intended beneficiaries, the review will provide critical and pragmatic insights for research and community engagement in low- and middle-income countries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand. Dissemination will include traditional academic channels, institutional communications, social media and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesNoncommunicable DiseasesHealth PromotionHumansIncomeReferral and ConsultationResearch DesignReview Literature as Topicethics (see medical ethics)preventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID34290072
PMCPMC8296813

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.