ArticleBMC public health2024
Exploring community-based participatory research for household and ambient air pollution projects: insights from key informants.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Overcoming data collection challenges in rural settings by community engagement initiatives: reflections from the research team.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the extensive use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) in health-related projects, there is limited work on how CBPR processes result in outcomes, especially in household and ambient air pollution (HAAP) research. This study explores the reflections of key informants on factors that shape the implementation and outcomes of CBPR in HAAP projects.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 key stakeholders, including academic researchers, non-governmental organisation administrators, a policymaker, and community members. All interviewees have experience in CBPR projects. Interviews were analysed using framework analysis, and findings were mapped to Wallerstein et al.'s CBPR conceptual model, which consists of four constructs: context, partnership processes, intervention and research, and outcomes.
resultsThe findings are described under two main categories: 'barriers to participation' and 'good practices for effective CBPR design and implementation'. Relevant sub-categories were barriers at the structural, research, community, and individual levels. Suggestions for good practices included respect, cultural humility, trust, effective communication, suitable and affordable interventions such as improved cookstoves, appropriate participatory research tools, and gratuity for the community's time.
conclusionKey informants' perspectives identified factors supported by the CBPR model to inform the design and implementation of the CBPR approach. The add-ons to some of the model's factors, such as intra-community dynamics, give value to the informants' knowledge to support community-research partnerships and improve outcomes in HAAP intervention projects. Addressing these factors at the design stage and reporting CBPR evaluation could deepen the understanding of community-research partnerships.
Indexed as
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.