ReviewWellcome open research2025
Engaging and supporting Community Researchers in Low and Middle-Income Countries: An Integrative Review.
Review in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Engaging and supporting Community Researchers in Low and Middle-Income Countries: An Integrative Review.Wellcome open research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objectives of this integrative systematic review were to describe how community researchers (CRs) in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) settings are recruited, trained and supported in research projects, to identify facilitators, challenges and impacts of involving CRs, and to explore CRs' own experiences of conducting research. This area has not previously been synthesised across studies, thereby offering an original contribution to the evidence base. Primary research studies, of any study design and in any language, that provided insights into the review objectives in LMICs were included in the review. Search strategies included database searches and backward and forward chaining. Seven databases were searched on 5th November 2024 without date or language limits: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus. Quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Qualitative synthesis of the findings was undertaken using a reflexive thematic approach. Overall, 39 papers reporting 27 studies were included in the review, with only seven papers scoring under 80% on the MMAT. Findings were synthesised over four themes: (1) recruitment, engagement and support; (2) benefits and challenges to the community researchers and communities; (3) benefits and challenges to the research; (4) ethics of engagement. Engaging CRs offers clear benefits, including improved access to marginalised groups, reduced power imbalances, and richer, culturally informed data. However, this review also highlights ethical concerns, emotional strain, and inequitable compensation, particularly in LMIC contexts where there are structural inequalities, limited resources, and sociocultural challenges. These findings highlight the need for research teams to adopt more ethical and inclusive approaches to CR involvement. Priorities include attribute-based recruitment processes, comprehensive training and ongoing support, fair remuneration, and structures that protect CRs' wellbeing. Strengthening these practices is essential to minimise harm, enhance data quality, and ensure community-engaged research delivers meaningful and equitable benefits.
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.