ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2022
"
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing the Value of Health Intervention Trials: Qualitative Research in the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' engagement for improved health outcomes: a research brief to design a tool for better communication and participation.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Article
- The "3 Ps" of EmPowerment, Partnership and Protection - Stakeholder Perceptions of Beneficial Outcomes of Engagement in HIV Prevention Trials.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Revisiting community engagement methods in the context of data science research and big data use in South Africa.South African journal of scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ethics guidance recommends that researchers engage stakeholders and that RECs review research for such engagement. The ethics review process may present a unique opportunity to support stakeholder engagement practices for HIV prevention studies. We conducted 28 interviews with experts from 12 countries to explore this issue, and analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis. We found that the value of engagement and review processes was strongly endorsed. However, we identified 3 major thematic complexities, namely: "Tokenism" where processes risk being "tick-box"; "Toxicity", where practices may inadvertently have negative consequences; and "Tailoring", where processes need careful variation in intensity. We make recommendations for how these "Ts" can be addressed during the review process to help contribute to thoughtful review of meaningful stakeholder engagement in research.
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.