Effective community entry: reflections on community engagement in culturally sensitive research in southwestern Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective community entry processes influence community participation and acceptance of public health interventions. Though there is a growing body of literature on the importance of community partnerships, there is a lack of pragmatic and practical documentation of the experiences involved in the community entry process as it relates to culturally sensitive topics such as child marriage which can help to support researchers working in this field. This article highlights key themes related to knowledge of the community, effective communication, cultural sensitivity, coproduction and giving feedback which help to build trust between the community members and the research team. Institutional representation, not managing expectations, and lack of clarity, along with personal opinions of community gatekeepers can create challenges for the fostering of trustworthy relationships with the community. These realities must be actively addressed right at the onset of the process between the research team and community stakeholders. Researchers can develop trust, form connections and engage different communities by working with local groups and leaders, using culturally appropriate methods, and addressing community concerns. Future projects working with communities on child marriage in Nigeria and other countries would benefit from the reflections presented in this paper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".