ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Facilitators and barriers to community engagement in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative-A mixed methods study.
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. 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.
- Community engagement for HPV vaccination in Nigeria.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- An implementation science framework to understand low coverage in mass dog rabies vaccination.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Community Engagement during Guinea Worm and Polio Eradication Endgames in Chad: Recommendations for "Last Mile" Programming.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Article
- How to eradicate polio in Pakistan: Insights from community health workers.PLOS global public health · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community engagement (CE) is an important component of public health research and program implementation, especially in low- and middle-income countries. More recently, CE activities have been utilized to develop partnerships in research and program implementation processes, and advocate for policy recommendations with the aim to improve acceptance and reduce disparities of public health research activities and benefits in the involved communities. Utilizing the tacit knowledge gained from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, this paper highlights the contributors and challenges to the implementation of the GPEI program's community engagement initiatives from an implementers' perspective. The study took a mixed methods approach to analyze data collected from the Synthesis and Translation of Research and Innovations from Polio Eradication (STRIPE) project, which conducted an online survey and hosted key informant interviews with individuals who had been engaged with the GPEI program from 1988 onwards for at least 12 or more continuous months. An analysis of data limited to individuals (32%, N = 3659) who were primarily involved in CE activities revealed that around 24% were front-line healthcare workers, 21% were supervisors and 8% were surveillance officers. CE activities mainly focused on building trust within the communities, addressing misinformation, myths and fears around vaccinations, mobilization to reach high-risk or hard to reach populations, as well as building ownership and buy in from the communities. The strength of the implemental process of a program (38.7%) was among the key drivers of success, coupled with personal beliefs and characteristics of the implementers (25.3%). Social, political, and financial forces received mixed opinions as to their importance, depending on the stage of execution and readiness of the communities to accept the programs. Lessons learnt from the GPEI program provide tried and tested best practices and evidence for strategies that would work in diverse backgrounds with some customization to suit the needs of the situation.
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.