ReviewOne earth (Cambridge, Mass.)2022
Participatory research in times of COVID-19 and beyond: Adjusting your methodological toolkits.
Review in One earth (Cambridge, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Voices across difference: a qualitative exploration of health-promoting dialogues between older migrant women and researchers in Norway.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Living and Researching the COVID-19 Pandemic: Autoethnographic Reflections from a Co-Research Team of Older People and Academics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Digital storytelling online: a case report exploring virtual design, implementation opportunities and challenges.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Building citizen science intelligence for outbreak preparedness and response: a mixed-method study in nine countries to assess knowledge, readiness and feasibility.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 and unintended steps towards further equity in global health research.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- An 18-month follow-up of the Covid-19 psychology research consortium study panel: Survey design and fieldwork procedures for Wave 6.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Article
- A call for citizen science in pandemic preparedness and response: beyond data collection.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of "moving online" are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process.
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.