Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37287035›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

Whose knowledge counts? Involving communities in intervention and trial design using community conversations.

Rochelle A Burgess, Funmilayo Shittu, Agnese Iuliano, Ibrahim Haruna, Paula Valentine, Ayobami Adebayo Bakare, Tim Colbourn, Hamish R Graham, Eric D McCollum, Adegoke G Falade and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Rochelle A Burgess *Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. r.burgess@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9749-7065
Funmilayo Shittu *Department of Paediatrics, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Agnese IulianoDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ibrahim HarunaSave the Children, Abuja, Nigeria.
Paula ValentineSave the Children, London, UK.
Ayobami Adebayo BakareDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tim ColbournInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Hamish R GrahamCentre for International Child Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Eric D McCollumDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Eudowood Division of Pediatric Respiratory Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Adegoke G FaladeDepartment of Paediatrics, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Carina KingInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
INSPIRING Project Consortium

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline - Save the Children Foundation Partnership 82603743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent debates in Global Health call for expanding methodologies to allow typically silenced voices to contribute to processes of knowledge production and intervention design. Within trial research, this has typically involved small-scale qualitative work, with limited opportunities for citizens to contribute to the structure and nature of the trial. This paper reports on efforts to move past typical formative trial work, through adaptation of community conversations (CCs) methodology, an action-oriented approach that engages large numbers of community members in dialogue. We applied the CC method to explore community perspectives about pneumonia and managing the health of children under-5 in Northern Nigeria to inform our pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention to reduce under-5 mortality in Nigeria.

methodsWe conducted 12 rounds of community conversations with a total of 320 participants, in six administrative wards in Kiyawa Local Government Area, Jigawa state, our intervention site. Participants were male and female caregivers of children under five. Conversations were structured around participatory learning and action activities, using drawings and discussion to reduce barriers to entry. During activities participants were placed in subgroups: younger women (18-30 years of age), older women (31-49 years) and men (18 years above). Discussions were conducted over three 2-h sessions, facilitated by community researchers. Following an initial analysis to extract priority issues and perspectives on intervention structure, smaller focus group discussions were completed with participants in five new sites to ensure all 11 administrative wards in our study site contributed to the design.

resultsWe identified enabling and limiting factors which could shape the future trial implementation, including complex power relationships within households and wider communities shaping women's health decision-making, and the gendered use of space. We also noted the positive engagement of participants during the CC process, with many participants valuing the opportunity to express themselves in ways they have not been able to in the past.

conclusionsCCs provide a structured approach to deep meaningful engagement of everyday citizens in intervention and trial designs, but require appropriate resources, and commitment to qualitative research in trials.

trial registrationISRCTN39213655. Registered on 11 December 2019.

Indexed as

CaregiversLearningAgedChildFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleNigeriaQualitative ResearchCommunity conversationsCommunity engagementFormative researchParticipationTrialsUnder-5 pneumonia

Identifiers

PMID37287035
PMCPMC10249250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.