Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan 13:7:13.
doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17192.1. eCollection 2022.

'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

Affiliations
Review

'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

Robin Vincent et al. Wellcome Open Res. .

Abstract

Background: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly accepted as a critical aspect of health research, because of its potential to make research more ethical, relevant and well implemented. While CE activities linked to health research have proliferated in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and are increasingly described in published literature, there is a lack of conceptual clarity around how engagement is understood to 'work', and the aims and purposes of engagement are varied and often not made explicit. Ultimately, the evidence base for engagement remains underdeveloped. Methods: To develop explanations for how and why CE with health research contributes to the pattern of outcomes observed in published literature , we conducted a realist review of CE with malaria research - a theory driven approach to evidence synthesis. Results: We found that community engagement relies on the development of provisional 'working relationships' across differences, primarily of wealth, power and culture. These relationships are rooted in interactions that are experienced as relatively responsive and respectful, and that bring tangible research related benefits. Contextual factors affecting development of working relationships include the facilitating influence of research organisation commitment to and resources for engagement, and constraining factors linked to the prevailing 'dominant health research paradigm context', such as: differences of wealth and power between research centres and local populations and health systems; histories of colonialism and vertical health interventions; and external funding and control of health research. Conclusions: The development of working relationships contributes to greater acceptance and participation in research by local stakeholders, who are particularly interested in research related access to health care and other benefits. At the same time, such relationships may involve an accommodation of some ethically problematic characteristics of the dominant health research paradigm, and thereby reproduce this paradigm rather than challenge it with a different logic of collaborative partnership.

Keywords: Community Engagement; access to health; health research; malaria research; realist review; research benefits; research ethics; stakeholder engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Robin Vincent and other members of the team have worked on a consultancy basis on projects that seek to better understand and enhance community engagement with health research in a number of different settings.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Summary of REAL search process.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Programme theory summary – engagement developing ‘working relationships’ across difference.

References

    1. Abimbola S: Beyond positive a priori bias: reframing community engagement in LMICs. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(3):598–609. 10.1093/heapro/daz023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adhikari B, James N, Newby G, et al. : Community engagement and population coverage in mass anti-malarial administrations: a systematic literature review. Malar J. 2016;15(1):523. 10.1186/s12936-016-1593-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adhikari B, Pell C, Cheah PY: Community engagement and ethical global health research. Glob Bioeth. 2020;31(1):1–12. 10.1080/11287462.2019.1703504 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adhikari B, Vincent R, Wong G, et al. : A realist review of community engagement with health research [version 2; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:87. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15298.2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aggett S: Turning the gaze: challenges of involving biomedical researchers in community engagement with research in Patan, Nepal. Crit Public Health. 2018;28(3):306–317. 10.1080/09581596.2018.1443203 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources