ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Integrating community engagement and involvement in surgical care processes in low-resource settings: a case study from Pakistan.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity engagement and involvement (CEI) is highly recognized as an important factor in providing ethical, effective, and equitable healthcare and medical research. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the implementation of the CEI has been limited, especially in surgical systems. In collaboration with the UK’s National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury (ABSI) group at the University of Cambridge, this study describes the development, implementation, and initial outcomes of a formal CEI initiative at Northwest General Hospital and Research Centre (NWGH & RC) in Pakistan. The primary purpose of this initiative is to actively engage patients, caregivers, and community members in the development, administration, and management of surgical care, focusing on conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), spina bifida, and burns.
methodsParticipants were recruited via telephone using records from the hospital system, outpatient services, and community outreach events. The prominent features of the CEI initiative were patient-led podcasts, the co-creation of educational materials, involvement in the review of research ethics, and participation in public awareness and advocacy efforts. These initiatives led to key institutional transformations, such as the integration of CEI principles into Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications. The activities repositioned participants from passive recipients of care to active healthcare advocates and research partners.
resultsThis CEI model is now recognized as a framework that can be used both locally and internationally and can be reproduced and extended in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Adapting to local cultures, utilizing multilingual resources, and maintaining engagement through informal feedback channels are the primary elements that contributed to the success of these practices. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis revealed opportunities for growth and skill enhancement, alongside challenges such as limited resources and the potential for participant dropout.
conclusionThe results suggest high potential to enhance the relevance of research, the responsiveness of healthcare systems, and community engagement in surgical care within resource-constrained global environments, if the CEI is carefully managed to fit cultural frameworks and integrated into existing structures. Despite this, future work to assess the long-term clinical outcomes and policy-level impacts of CEI in surgical care is required.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.