MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577655093 · doi:10.1186/s40249-016-0231-9

Initiating community engagement in an ecohealth research project in Southern Africa

2017· article· en· W2577655093 on OpenAlex
Rosemary Musesengwa, Moses John Chimbari, Samson Mukaratirwa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Diseases of Poverty · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCommunity engagementEmpowermentFocus groupCommunity-based participatory researchParticipatory action researchPublic relationsQualitative researchCommunity healthPoliticsCommunity organizationSociologyPublic healthPolitical scienceMedicineNursingSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community Engagement (CE) in health research ensures that research is consistent with the socio-cultural, political and economic contexts where the research is conducted. The greatest challenges for researchers are the practical aspects of CE in multicentre health research. This study describes the CE in an ecohealth community-based research project focusing on two vulnerable and research naive rural communities. METHODS: A qualitative, longitudinal multiple case study approach was used. Data was collected through Participatory Rural Appraisals, Focus Group Discussions, In-depth Interviews, and observations. RESULTS: The two sites had different cultural values, research literacy levels, and political and administrative structures. The engagement process included 1) introductions to the administrative and political leaders of the area; 2) establishing a community advisory mechanism; 3) community empowerment and 4) initiating sustainable post-study activities. In both sites the study employed community liaison officers to facilitate the community entry and obtaining letters of permission. Both sites opted to form Community Advisory Boards as their main advisory mechanism together with direct advice from community leaders. Empowerment was achieved through the education of ordinary community members at biannual meetings, employment of community research assistants and utilising citizen science. Through the research assistants and the citizen science group, the study has managed to initiate activities that the community will continue to utilise after the study ends. General strategies developed are similar in principle, but implementation and emphasis of various aspects differed in the two communities. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that it is critical that community engagement be consistent with community values and attitudes, and considers community resources and capacity. A CE strategy fully involving the community is constrained by community research literacy levels, time and resources, but creates a conducive research environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.783
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.093 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it