Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078895›Full record

ArticleAAS open research2021

Community-structures that facilitate engagement in health research: Ifakara Health Research Institute-Bagamoyo case study.

Leah Bategereza, Ally Olotu, Dorcas Kamuya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AAS open research, 2021. 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. Review
  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

3 authors.

Leah BategerezaIfakara Health Institute, Bagamoyo, Tanzania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5990-4598
Ally OlotuIfakara Health Institute, Bagamoyo, Tanzania.
Dorcas KamuyaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kilifi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7107-1736

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvolvement of communities in health research has been at the forefront of ethical conduct of research worldwide. Despite the fact that many scholars have put forward different ways of engaging communities in health research, debates on the forms and goals of engagement, levels of engagement, who should be engaged in the community and how, still persist. At the Ifakara Health Research Institute (IHI) in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, different approaches to engaging with the community in health research have been used over the last decade. Of the approaches that have been used, are the use of community structures including traditional and administrative leaders, which have been periodically engaged, but with little sharing beyond study-level. Therefore, the present research was aimed to describe the nature of community structures that could be engaged in health research at the Ifakara Research Centre, the strength and weakness of working with such community structures, and the impact of the structures on research conducted in the center, including promoting research participation.

methodsA qualitative study based on social science methodological design and a thematic approach for data analysis was employed. Data collection was undertaken in between February 2019 and December 2019. In this study, a total of 25 interviews with 55 respondents in which 19 were In-Depth Interviews (IDIs), and 6 were Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were carried out. The In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) involved Village Executive Officers (VEOs), Hamlet Leaders (HLs), Community Health Workers (CHWs), Principal Investigators (PIs), study coordinators (SCs), research project managers (PMs), and field workers (FWs), while 6 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) involved community respondents who previously participated in IHI research. The FGDs were conducted in 3 villages; two FGDs in each village, one each for men and women. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using framework analysis. Comparative thematic analysis was undertaken as more data was added, creating new themes, until there was no new emerging themes, a point of data saturation. The themes were charted across respondent groups to map patterns of the themes across respondents groups.

resultsData shows different community structures including the village executive officers, community health workers, hamlet leaders, and community advisory board were involved in engagement activities. Approaches used for engagement as per the findings under this study include community-level public meetings, information giving at household level and at the health facilities, the use of outpatient attendance at hospital/dispensary, the use of Health District Coordinators, the use of some members of village leaders/representatives families through their both informed assent and consent as project or research participants, and the use of routine health care campaigns in the community to create awareness of the particular diseases such as Tuberculosis day (TB day), Malaria day and HIV day. The weaknesses that were reported include inconsistence research feedback, insufficient engagement with participants about specific research projects they are recruited into and false promises by researchers to community stakeholders. Community stakeholders suggested additional ways to engage with the community, these include radio, advertisement, posters, brochures and regular meetings.

Indexed as

community engagementCommunity networks/structureshealth research

Identifiers

PMID40078895
PMCPMC11303950

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.