Community engagement in research addressing infectious diseases of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though engaging communities in research processes has several advantages and implications, research efforts are poorly embedded in and linked with communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is also a need for more empirical evidence on effectively engaging communities in research in LMICs, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Thus, there is an urgent need to synthesize existing evidence on community engagement experiences in research in SSA. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesize the existing community engagement experiences and related barriers to engaging communities in health research focusing on infectious diseases of poverty in SSA. The systematic review was conducted following the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. The review included both published and unpublished studies. A thematic analysis approach was used for data synthesis. A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Community engagement in the conceptualization of the research project, analysis, dissemination, and interpretation of the result was rare. On top of this, almost all the research projects engaged the community at a lower level of engagement (i.e., informing or consulting the community at some point in the research process), suggesting the importance of integrating communities in the entire research cycle. The lack of shared control over the research by the community was one of the significant challenges mentioned. This review uncovered that community engagement in the research process is minimal. Nevertheless, the review generated valuable evidence that can inform researchers and research stakeholders to promote effective community engagement in the research process addressing infectious diseases of poverty. Despite these, it requires rigorous primary studies to examine the applicability and usefulness of community engagement, including developing valid metrics of engagement, standardizations of reporting community engagements, and views and understandings of communities and stakeholders on the values, expectations, and concepts of community engagement in research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".