Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959564›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2023

Realist approach to community-based participatory research on a community health break-down in Japan: mechanism reasoning, knowledge and a trust partnership.

Seiji Yamashiro, Keiichiro Kita

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Seiji YamashiroDepartment of General Medicine, Toyama University Hospital, Toyama, Japan. yamashir@med.u-toyama.ac.jp.
Keiichiro KitaDepartment of General Medicine, Toyama University Hospital, Toyama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur 10-year programme of community health regeneration and community-based participatory research (CBPR) was initially unknown. However, we succeeded in creating a collaboration between residents, medical staff, and administrative staff. We adopted a realist approach as an evaluation method.

methodsThe realist approach evaluates a programme using a Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration (CMOc), which is a relatively new methodology. First, the programme manager summarised the entire programme, conducted questionnaires and interviews with seven core members, and summarised each into a CMOc. The programme was evaluated with particular focus on mechanistic reasoning.

resultsThe number of doctors and nurses increased and residents became more active. The success factors were the acquisition of participants' knowledge and trust partnerships. In addition, it was important that the timing of the activity was good and that the participants were highly conscious.

conclusionsThe 10-year CBPR was examined using a realist evaluation method. Knowledge acquisition and trust partnerships are important for reasoning mechanism.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchTrustFocus GroupsHumansJapanPublic HealthAging populationsCollaborationCommunity-based participatory researchCommunity health break-downContext-mechanism-outcome configuration, Knowledge, Trust partnershipHuman resources developmentRealist approachShortage of doctors

Identifiers

PMID36959564
PMCPMC10037861

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.