ArticleInternational journal of circumpolar health2026
A participatory research project on health issues at the dog-human interface in seven indigenous communities in Northern Canada: how successful was participation?
Article in International journal of circumpolar health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines community participation in a research project on health issues at the human-dog interface conducted in seven Northern Canadian Indigenous communities. Using a realist evaluation, we analyzed the mechanisms underlying participatory successes and failures in eleven projects derived from an ecosystem approach to health. This qualitative evaluation revealed that the researchers' concerns about collaborators' participation were largely unfounded. Experienced collaborators demonstrated resilience in the face of previous negative experiences and appreciated the participatory approach. However, over-solicitation of the same stakeholders and mistrust of researchers from the South limited wider community participation. Organizational collaborators played a crucial, but ambivalent role as intermediaries-both facilitating access to communities (boundary-spanning) and, at times, restricting researchers' contact with broader community members (gatekeeping). Although the "dog problem" was recognized as important, it was not a priority in the face of more pressing local or regional challenges. This evaluation highlights the importance of trust, realistic expectations and an understanding of cultural dynamics in optimizing participation in participatory research in Indigenous contexts.
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.