Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36647684›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Engaging participants with research findings: A rights-informed approach.

Mathew Sunil George, Rakhal Gaitonde, Rachel Davey, Itismita Mohanty, Penney Upton

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Engaging participants with research findings: A rights-informed approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Guide to Engaging with Media to Amplify Health Research.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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.

Mathew Sunil GeorgeHealth Research Institute University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4844-4324
Rakhal GaitondeAchuta Menon Centre for Health Science Studies SCTIMST, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Rachel DaveyHealth Research Institute University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Itismita MohantyHealth Research Institute University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Penney UptonHealth Research Institute University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSharing research findings with participants is recognized as an ethical imperative for the research community. However, most discourse on this topic in mainstream public health takes a paternalistic approach, with researchers retaining the power to choose if, when, and how research findings are shared.

methodsFieldwork took place from August 2018 to January 2019 and again from August 2019 to December 2019 among two communities in the south Indian state of Kerala. We integrated participant engagement with study findings into the research protocol, using various collaborative strategies identified during the design stage, forming partnerships with participants and determining appropriate forms of dissemination for different participant groups during fieldwork.

resultsFindings from previous research projects undertaken with these communities by other researchers had not been shared with them. This was interpreted by the communities as researchers not being interested in making a difference to their situation. In the current study, building reciprocal relationships that minimized power disparities, and providing outputs in tailored formats that promoted active engagement were key factors that enabled participants to engage with results. This engagement added value by enabling us to co-develop study recommendations. This process also enabled the community to have ownership of the results and use them to advocate for health system change to improve access to health care.

conclusionResearch should be transformative for participating communities. Participants have a right to know the results of the research they participate in since their knowledge provides the research data which can in turn promote community change. Operationalising this requires researchers to build partnerships with participants and their communities from the outset. The role of participants must be reimagined, and adequate resources should be built into the research process. This is both socially responsible and ethical, but also improves the impact and legitimacy of research for the participants and the communities that they represent. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants of our research contributed to the design of various aspects of the engagement processes including the venue, the formats used for engagement, interpretation of the findings and recommendations from our research.

Indexed as

Public HealthResearch PersonnelHealth FacilitiesHumansdisseminationengagementknowledge sharingparticipantsresearch findingsrights

Identifiers

PMID36647684
PMCPMC10010096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read3
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.