ArticleCurrent tropical medicine reports2024
Including the voice of children <15-years-old in paediatric global health research.
Article in Current tropical medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discourses on children and health in National Public Health Policy documents: examples from Sweden and Norway.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Integrating HPV vaccination into ART clinics: perspectives from an ethnographic study with girls aged 9-14 years in Ndola District, Zambia.AIDS care · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Post-TB treatment completion experiences of children, adolescents, and caregivers from Cape Town.IJTLD open · 2025Article
- Children, caregivers and health workers' perceptions and experiences of the XTEMP-R tool to improve tuberculosis treatment.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Mixed Methods Evaluation of "Cooking Monsters": An Empowerment-Focussed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adolescent Nutrition Programme.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
Purpose of Review: Despite evidence of the benefits of including children's voices in global health research, they continue to be underrepresented. Implementation of how to include children's voices appears to remain an obstacle to their inclusion in global health research. In this manuscript, we present an epistemological frame that advocates children as experts of their own experiences and knowledge-bearers. Then we provide four case studies, to illustrate ongoing efforts to build equity in the design and execution of paediatric health research. Recent Findings: Ensuring children's equitable inclusion requires recognizing them as active participants in their health and wellbeing, and empowering them to employ their agency in all interactions with researchers, while recognizing the dialogical nature of those interactions. Successfully involving children in global health research can lead to important psychosocial and clinical insights, that could be leveraged to inform future treatment and care practices. Summary: We present four case studies describing the inclusion of children in research and research development related to prevention, treatment and/or care of chronic and acute diseases (tuberculosis, HIV, cervical and other forms of cancer) in a number of global settings including India, Philippines, South Africa, United States, Zambia. The exemplars detail novel applications of a diversity of arts-based methods that are rooted in frameworks for participatory action research. They highlight the need to invest funds, training, time and resources for early and sustained engagement with children throughout the research process. We conclude by offering principles for equitably engaging children in global health research.
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.