Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241058›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

'Community people are the most powerful resources': qualitative critical realist analysis and framework to support co-produced responses to zoonotic disease threats with(in) Nepali communities.

Anna Durrance-Bagale, Hari Basnet, Nanda Bahadur Singh, Steven R Belmain, James W Rudge, Natasha Howard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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

6 authors.

Anna Durrance-BagaleLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Department of Global Health & Development, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. anna.durrance-bagale@lshtm.ac.uk.
Hari BasnetNepalese Ornithological Union, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nanda Bahadur SinghCentral Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Steven R BelmainNatural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK.
James W RudgeLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Department of Global Health & Development, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Natasha HowardLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Department of Global Health & Development, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-production between researchers, service providers, and members of affected communities is an old concept renewed by current efforts to decolonise global health, reduce exploitative practices, and develop more sustainable, context-relevant interventions to address global health issues. Working with communities- how ever defined- is central to healthcare improvement but engaging with communities and identifying priorities remains challenging for disease control professionals. Co-production aims to help ensure community members have some control over the design and implementation of any intervention, and greater ownership of processes and outcomes. We aimed to identify what would encourage co-production of activities to prevent potential transmission of zoonoses.

methodsIn this qualitative study, we (British and Nepali researchers) interviewed 73 participants from six communities across Nepal, with 10 participating in photovoice. We also interviewed 20 healthcare professionals and policymakers, 14 representing human and six representing animal health. We interpreted data using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsThirty-nine people in six communities participated in interviews, with another 34 in 5 focus groups. We generated three overarching themes: (i) constrained healthcare-seeking behaviours, (ii) experience of community programmes, and (iii) community priorities and co-production. Community participants, despite strong opinions and desire to participate in disease control interventions, had experienced little or no attempt by intervention organisers to engage them in design, implementation, evaluation, or accountability. Most had no experience of programmes at all. Participants highlighted the significance of working in 'local' languages, respecting religious and cultural realities, relating initiatives to lived experience, and ensuring that local leaders are involved.

conclusionsMeaningful co-production requires recognising communities- through legitimate leadership/representation- as expert and equal partners who can 'work alongside' at all stages of any initiative. Implications from this research include the importance of promoting trust in communities through inclusion of influential community members (community health volunteers, traditional medicine practitioners, women's group leaders); the use of indigenous languages; the acceptability of different media for interventions (theatre, drama); and the need to be pragmatic about available resources, to manage the expectations of community members.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationZoonosesAnimalsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNepalQualitative ResearchCommunity engagementCo-productionInfectious diseaseMitigationNepalOne healthZoonotic disease

Identifiers

PMID40241058
PMCPMC12001725

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.