ArticlePloS one2026
From knowledge to action: Participatory research methods to create an action plan for healthier communities.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a large knowledge to implementation gap in traditional research. Community based participatory research (CBPR) can fill this gap by improving the validity and relevance of research and by ensuring more effective knowledge translation. CBPR methods can also be used to develop research, policy and programming agendas which can direct the priorities of funders, policy- and decision-makers. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology used in a "community engaged" CBPR action planning process, as well as to discuss whether this is an effective method of closing the knowledge to implementation gap. This methods paper illustrates phase two of a CBPR study, the overarching objective of which was to explore how to improve resilience and well being for families facing adversity.
methodsUsing the research findings from a mixed methods multiple case study exploring families' experiences of adversity and resilience (phase one), as well as extensive community consultation involving over 250 community members, and a CBPR team of 4 academic and 4 community researchers and a research manager, this study employed novel team-based adaptation of reflexive thematic analysis techniques using CBPR principles to develop participatory, evidence-based community action planning.
resultsOver 250 community members participated a total of 11 community meetings as part of the consultation process, producing over 200 action items which the research team then collaboratively organized in 20 final topic areas or themes. Multipronged knowledge translation techniques (infographics, websites, policy briefs) ensured that these findings were communicated back to the community, funders, municipal government and other agencies involved in program planning.
conclusionIn this context, CBPR was an effective method of engaging a significant number of community members in informing policy, program and research priorities that can improve the lives of people experiencing adversity. Decision makers and program developers demonstrated interest in research findings that involve community participation and consultation by including these findings in subsequent funding applications and referencing them in policy documents. CBPR also led to increased trust and partnership between academic and community organizations as demonstrated by a number of subsequent requests for research training and research partnerships which may benefit all parties in the long run.
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.