ArticleBMC public health2026
Engaging tuberculosis-affected people in investment decisions: applying a people-centered design approach in Viet Nam.
Article in BMC 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) remains the leading cause of death from an infectious disease globally, yet financing for the TB response continues to fall far short of identified needs. Decisions about how resources are allocated are often made with limited engagement of people directly affected by TB, potentially overlooking lived experiences and community-defined priorities. This study was implemented in Viet Nam to align future TB investments with community-defined priorities and programmatic feasibility. This paper describes the process and its application to priority setting and intervention selection alongside national planning processes.
methodsThis was a participatory co-design study guided by a people-centered design framework. The process integrated qualitative data collection and deliberative stakeholder engagement across three phases: Discover (qualitative interviews and focus groups to identify challenges), Define (stakeholder workshops to prioritize challenges and co-develop an evaluation framework), and Develop (structured prioritization assessment and selection of an intervention). In the Discover phase, 88 participants identified challenges across the TB care cascade. In the Define and Develop phases, decision-making was overseen by a diverse 21-member Leadership Group. Participants co-developed an evaluation framework across three domains (fit and desirability, potential impact, and feasibility), which was used to assess and rank potential investment opportunities. Facilitation strategies, including equal voting rights and anonymous ranking, were applied to promote equitable participation.
resultsIn the Discover phase, 15 key challenges across the TB care cascade were identified and reframed as opportunities for improvement. In the Define phase, stakeholders applied the evaluation framework to assess 19 innovation categories. Three intervention areas were shortlisted for detailed consideration: computer-aided detection software for chest X-ray interpretation, paper-free data systems, and social and financial protection. In the Develop phase, structured scoring and deliberation, including consideration of feasibility and the existing funding landscape, led to the selection of social and financial protection as the intervention for near-term investment and implementation.
conclusionsParticipatory co-design enabled TB-affected people and health system stakeholders to directly contribute to early-stage investment prioritization within Viet Nam's TB response. The selection of social and financial protection reflects both lived economic challenges and system-level considerations, highlighting the value of participatory approaches in identifying locally relevant priorities that may be underemphasized in conventional funding processes.
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.