Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39453263›Full record

ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2024

Community Engagement and Collaboration between Researchers and Community Stakeholders for Schistosomiasis and Malaria Projects in Ingwavuma, uMkhanyakude District, KwaZulu-Natal.

Zinhle Mthembu, Moses John Chimbari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Zinhle MthembuDepartment of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa 3886, South Africa.
Moses John ChimbariDepartment of Behavioural Science, Medical and Health Sciences, Great Zimbabwe University, Masvingo P.O. Box 1235, Zimbabwe.

Funding

National Research Foundation 116263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community engagement is a multiphase process that is crucial for successful community-based health interventions. This study investigates the collaborative phase of community engagement, specifically within a co-developed framework implemented in uMkhanyakude District, South Africa. A qualitative case study approach was employed to explore the experiences of key community stakeholders during the collaborative phase of project implementation. Data collection involved key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observation. The findings demonstrate the potential for effective collaboration among village headmen, community advisory board members, and community research assistants to address local health challenges. Community research assistants played a particularly valuable role in facilitating participatory research and hands-on engagement with researchers. However, several barriers hindered the collaborative process, including demanding work conditions, communication issues regarding compensation, inappropriate behavior from the research team, and culturally insensitive interactions. While community-based participatory research offers a promising collaborative approach for addressing health issues, a careful consideration of local socio-cultural dynamics is essential to avoid misunderstandings and overcome potential barriers. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensuring that collaborative partnerships effectively empower communities and achieve sustainable improvements in health outcomes.

Indexed as

collaborationcommunity advisory boardscommunity engagementheadmenKEP researchers

Identifiers

PMID39453263
PMCPMC11511085

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.