ArticleBMJ global health2022
The response is like a big ship': community feedback as a case study of evidence uptake and use in the 2018-2020 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'This is not our mandate': a qualitative case study on the resilience of a humanitarian health programme in Lebanon.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Mapping evidence for health policy and systems decision-making: a spectrum approach bridging tacit and scientific knowledge across local and global contexts.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Using the Community Perception Tracker (CPT) to inform COVID-19 response in Lebanon and Zimbabwe: a qualitative methods evaluation.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Using Wash'Em to Design Handwashing Programmes for Crisis-Affected Populations in Zimbabwe: A Process Evaluation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Performance of a safe and dignified burial intervention during an Ebola epidemic in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018-2019.BMC medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) took place in the highly complex protracted crisis regions of North Kivu and Ituri. The Red Cross developed a community feedback (CF) data collection process through the work of hundreds of Red Cross personnel, who gathered unprompted feedback in order to inform the response coordination mechanism and decision-making.
aimTo understand how a new CF system was used to make operational and strategic decisions by Ebola response leadership.
methodsQualitative data collection in November 2019 in Goma and Beni (DRC), including document review, observation of meetings and CF activities, key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
findingsThe credibility and use of different evidence types was affected by the experiential and academic backgrounds of the consumers of that evidence. Ebola response decision-makers were often medics or epidemiologists who tended to view quantitative evidence as having more rigour than qualitative evidence. The process of taking in and using evidence in the Ebola response was affected by decision-makers' bandwidth to parse large volumes of data coming from a range of different sources. The operationalisation of those data into decisions was hampered by the size of the response and an associated reduction in agility to new evidence.
conclusionCF data collection has both instrumental and intrinsic value for outbreak response and should be normalised as a critical data stream; however, a failure to act on those data can further frustrate communities.
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.