Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35332054›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2022

Partnering with organisations beyond academia through strategic collaboration for research and mobilisation in immigrant/ethnic-minority communities.

Tanvir Chowdhury Turin, Nashit Chowdhury, Nahid Rumana, Mohammad A A Lasker, Mahdi Qasqas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Nurturing Acceptance for Research in the Community: Conceptualising Engagement Towards Research Through Normalisation Process Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Co-Designing an Engagement Strategy to Include the Voices of a Minority Group in Assessing the Quality of Maternity and Neonatal Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Precision health equity for racialized communities.International journal for equity in health · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Conceptualising community engagement as an infinite game implemented through finite games of 'research', 'community organising' and 'knowledge mobilisation'.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tanvir Chowdhury TurinDepartment of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada turin.chowdhury@ucalgary.ca.
Nashit ChowdhuryDepartment of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nahid RumanaSleep Center, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mohammad A A LaskerCommunity Scholar and Citizen Researcher, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mahdi QasqasCommunity Scholar and Citizen Researcher, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community-engaged research needs involving community organisations as partners in research. Often, however, considerations regarding developing a meaningful partnership with community organisations are not highlighted. Researchers need to identify the most appropriate organisation with which to engage and their capacity to be involved. Researchers tend to involve organisations based on their connection to potential participants, which relationship often ends after achieving this objective. Further, the partner organisation may not have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the research process. As such, it is the researchers' responsibility to build capacity within their partner organisations to encourage more sustainable and meaningful community-engaged research. Organisations pertinent to immigrant/ethnic-minority communities fall into three sectors: public, private and non-profit. While public and private sectors play an important role in addressing issues among immigrant/ethnic-minority communities, their contribution as research partners may be limited. Involving the non-profit sector, which tends to be more accessible and utilitarian and includes both grassroots associations (GAs) and immigrant service providing organisations (ISPOs), is more likely to result in mutually beneficial research partnerships and enhanced community engagement. GAs tend to be deeply rooted within, and thus are often truly representative of, the community. As they may not fully understand their importance from a researcher's perspective, nor have time for research, capacity-building activities are required to address these limitations. Additionally, ISPOs may have a different understanding of research and research priorities. Understanding the difference in perspectives and needs of these organisations, building trust and creating capacity building opportunities are important steps for researchers to consider towards building durable partnerships.

Indexed as

Emigrants and ImmigrantsCapacity BuildingHumansSocial Behaviorhealth education and promotion

Identifiers

PMID35332054
PMCPMC8948381
OpenAlexW4220853752

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.