ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Nurturing Acceptance for Research in the Community: Conceptualising Engagement Towards Research Through Normalisation Process Theory.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-engaged research with immigrant and visible minority communities requires intentional strategies to foster acceptance, trust and sustained participation. Historically, research in marginalised communities has been extractive and externally driven, leading to mistrust and scepticism.
objectivesTo address this, we applied Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as a guiding framework to integrate research as a meaningful, community-driven practice rather than an extractive academic exercise. The objective of this paper is to describe how NPT can illuminate the social and relational processes involved in introducing, legitimising and maintaining collaborative research practices within a community.
methodsUsing NPT's four constructs-Coherence (establishing the 'why'), Cognitive Participation (generating the 'will'), Collective Action (carrying out the 'tasks') and Reflexive Monitoring (reflecting and adapting)-we structured a phased approach to community engagement. Our initiatives included community-focused outreach, community organisation for capacity-building and collaborative research activities, all designed to shift research from being externally imposed to community-engaged. A key challenge was achieving initial acceptance of research within the community.
resultsThrough intentional outreach, inclusive recruitment and participatory knowledge production, we transitioned from establishing legitimacy to building long-term, community-driven partnerships.
conclusionOur experience highlight the importance of embedding research within everyday community life, valuing local expertise and ensuring that knowledge production remains collaborative, accessible and action-oriented. This approach not only bridges the gap between academia and the community but also fosters equitable, enduring research relationships that lead to meaningful, sustainable impact. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: While preparing this manuscript, we have partnered actively with community scholars and citizen researchers from the very beginning. We had regular interactions with them to get their valuable and insightful inputs in shaping our reflections. Their involvement as co-authors in this paper also provided a learning opportunity for them and facilitated them to gain insight into knowledge engagement. All authors support the greater community/citizen/public involvement in research in an equitable manner.
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.