ArticleGlobal health action2026
'Responsive Dialogues', an engagement framework for antimicrobial resistance: a cross-country qualitative evaluation in Thailand and Malawi.
Article in Global health action, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis requiring multisectoral responses that extend beyond biomedical interventions. Participatory approaches can ensure that policies and practices reflect community realities, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains limited. To examine how the Responsive Dialogues (RD) framework was implemented in Malawi and Thailand, and to identify lessons on adapting participatory methods for AMR engagement, managing power dynamics, overcoming structural barriers, and supporting policy uptake. This cross-country evaluation applied the RD toolkit developed by the Wellcome Trust, which included three phases: groundwork, community conversations, and post-conversation sharing. Both countries followed this framework but adapted it to their social and political contexts. Data included field observations, facilitator reflections, participant feedback, and analysis of policy outcomes. Four themes emerged across both sites. First, adaptation was engagement process which shaped by trust, flexibility, and cultural sensitivity. Second, entrenched hierarchies influenced participation; strategies such as stakeholder briefings, ground rules, and rotating leadership roles helped mitigate imbalances, while in Malawi, village leaders' authority supported antibiotic regulation. Third, although Malawi's RD recommendations informed its revised National Action Plan on AMR, Thailand's community generated ideas were less visible in the national strategy, underscoring persistent gaps between local insights and high-level policy. Finally, reflective practice strengthened iterative learning and inclusivity. Overall, RD offers a promising model for facilitating participation in AMR mitigation plan. However, the differences in policy uptake in both countries highlight the limits of participatory approaches when not aligned with policy scale and resourcing.
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.