4.6 Review

Community engagement in research in sub-Saharan Africa: approaches, barriers, facilitators, ethical considerations and the role of gender - a systematic review protocol

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 12, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057922

Keywords

Protocols & guidelines; Public health; ETHICS (see Medical Ethics); Quality in health care; International health services

Funding

  1. WHO TDR [P21-00346]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Community engagement is considered crucial for the success of research, innovation, and intervention. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on how to engage communities in research in a gender-sensitive, ethical, culture-appropriate, and sustainable manner in sub-Saharan Africa.
Introduction Meaningful community engagement (CE) is increasingly being considered the major determinant of successful research, innovation and intervention uptake. Community leaders, policy makers and funders have expressed the need to engage communities in research. CE in research empowers the host community to participate in addressing its own health needs and health disparities while ensuring that researchers understand community priorities. Thus, appropriate CE opens a unique way to promote coproduction, coimplementation and coevaluation, which may strengthen both the sense of inclusion, ownership and the effectiveness of the research life-cycle. The aim of this review is to synthesise available evidence on how to engage communities in research in a gender-sensitive, ethical, culture-appropriate and sustainable way in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This protocol has been developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and follows the guidance provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Methods and analysis A combination of key text words and medical subject headings such as 'Community Engagement' or 'Community Involvement' will be used to search 009 databases for all literature published between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2021. Citations retrieved from database searches will be exported into EndNote X9 to remove duplicate citations and imported into Rayyan QCRI for screening. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction process. Disagreements between review authors will be resolved through discussions, consensus a third reviewer serving as a tiebreaker. The risk of bias will be assessed using the 10-item Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The three-staged process described by Thomas and Harden will be used for the thematic and narrative synthesis of findings. Ethics and dissemination This is a systematic review which uses already collected data thus ethical approval not required. Findings will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal and presented in relevant conferences and workshops. PROSPERO registration number This protocol has been submitted for registration in PROSPERO and has been published under registration number CRD42021282503 .

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available