ArticlePLOS global public health2026
The precarious state of community engagement in African clinical trials: A systematic review of funding, workforce gaps, and the path to institutionalization.
Article in PLOS global public 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
Community engagement (CE) is an ethical imperative for clinical trials, yet it is often treated as a peripheral activity rather than a core scientific requirement. In light of the Africa CDC's mandate to achieve 60% local vaccine production by 2040, establishing robust community engagement frameworks within African clinical trials is vital. We systematically synthesized evidence on CE approaches, with a focus on funding and sustainability, utilizing the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Peer-reviewed research articles on CE in clinical trials across Africa published from January 2000 to February 2026 in English or French were retrieved from eight databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, WHO Afro Library, African Journals Online databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Global Health, alongside gray literature, reference lists, EDCTP reports, and Africa CDC documents. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and spatial analysis was performed using R with the sf and ggplot2 packages. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Analysis revealed a dependency trap with approximately 90% of clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa estimated to be funded by external international donors, creating a sustainability gap where essential trial components, such as community engagement and laboratory infrastructure, often dissolve upon the conclusion of a specific grant. We identified three primary typologies: instrumental (recruitment-focused), ethical (compliance-focused), and collaborative (partnership-focused). Findings show that while robust CE correlates with improved recruitment and social value, the reliance on uncompensated community labor and indirect funding models threatens the long-term viability of the African trial ecosystem. Transitioning from extractive CE to institutionalized CE is critical for Africa's vaccine sovereignty, requiring funding models to shift toward direct, ring-fenced budgets to ensure pandemic preparedness and ethical integrity.
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.