ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Community engagement in health services research on elimination of lymphatic filariasis: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to contextualize the extent, nature, and quality of community engagement in health services research on eliminating lymphatic filariasis in low-and middle-income countries of Southeast Asia and Pacific Region. We performed a systematic review, and the results were reported according to the PRISMA-S checklist. Relevant studies were searched in health-related electronic databases, and selected according to the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies with various study designs were identified. The majority (68%) were conducted in India. Lay people, community leaders, and volunteers were the most common groups of community members (12/16,75%). Overall, the majority (13/16, 81%) were at the 'moderate level' of engagement in research context mainly by 'collaboration' in 'developing methodology' 'collaboration' in data collection and 'collaboration' for 'dissemination of findings. The common barriers to the community engagement were lack of involvement of participating bodies and technology-related issues. In conclusion, the insufficient description of the community engagement process in the studies limits a deeper understanding and analysis of the issue. Future well-designed prospective studies with attention to the description of mechanisms of engagement, facilitating the whole process and reporting the community level outcome are recommended.
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.