ArticleTropical medicine and health2026
Community perceptions, trust, and experiences of malaria clinical research and participation in rural Cambodia.
Article in Tropical medicine and 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding community perspectives on malaria treatment and research participation is important for designing ethically appropriate community engagement strategies, strengthening informed consent, and improving the conduct of clinical research while supporting disease control. This study explores treatment-seeking behaviours, perceptions of malaria, and experiences of research participation among community members in the catchment area of a rural research clinic run by the Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Siem Pang district, Cambodia.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted between July and September 2025. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions (FGDs) with 40 purposively selected participants using maximum diversity sampling, including 19 participants previously enrolled in malaria clinical trials and 21 community members familiar with MORU's research clinic within the Siem Pang Health Centre compound. All interviews and FGDs were conducted in Khmer, the national language of Cambodia. Interviews were audio-recorded, translated into English, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis exploring knowledge of malaria, pathways to treatment, perceptions about research staff, and experiences of research participation.
resultsRespondents reported heterogeneous understandings of malaria and its transmission, which were reflected in their explanatory models and accounts of treatment-seeking behaviour. We found that treatment choices were influenced by accessibility, cost, and perceived quality. Respondents perceived MORU's research clinic as a specialized malaria treatment centre. Some described clinical trials as routine treatment services. Respondents reported staff as caring, cautious and thorough in treatment and follow-up. Participants generally described the research activities in the Siem Pang research clinic as trustworthy, effective, and compassionate. Participants reported that research participation provided improved access to care, and close follow-up, and viewed it as contributing to malaria elimination. Participants expressed strong support for the researchers' continued presence and expansion into broader health research and education.
conclusionsParticipants perceived the research unit as providing high-quality clinical care, reflecting their experiences of sustained interactions with the research clinic and its procedures. Participants' narratives suggested features consistent with therapeutic misconceptions and may have promoted respondents' liberal trust and participation. Researchers should be aware of the unintended consequences of ethical research practices in remote communities. Acknowledging misplaced trust could enable wider discussion for managing community members' perceptions of clinical trials.
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.