Evidence mapPaperPMID 41333710Full record

ReviewBulletin of the World Health Organization2025

Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.

Meghan A Bohren, Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Martha Vazquez Corona, Thiago M Santos, Andrew Booth, Mercedes Bonet, Ana Pilar Betrán, Özge Tunçalp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria3053, Australia.
Rana Islamiah ZahrohGender and Women's Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria3053, Australia.
Martha Vazquez CoronaGender and Women's Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria3053, Australia.
Thiago M SantosGender and Women's Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria3053, Australia.
Andrew BoothSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Mercedes BonetUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
Özge TunçalpInstitute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To explore and map how community engagement is conducted in the development or adaptation of health guidelines, norms and standards. Methods: We conducted a methodological review by searching MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL databases for articles published from January 2007 to May 2025, excluding publications reporting the engagement of only one or two community members on the guideline development panel. We extracted and categorized data on guideline characteristics (type of guideline, issuing entity, health-care topic), community engagement methods, the stages of guideline development for which community members were engaged and any evidence of evaluation. We compared the study characteristics using descriptive statistics. Findings: We reviewed 267 publications representing 258 unique studies, predominantly based in high-income countries. We observed that people affected by the health condition were most commonly engaged, and typically through surveys, workshops or as panel members. We noted that community engagement was most commonly used to identify community priorities and values, but less frequently for defining guideline scope or implementation. Although some studies described innovative approaches (for example, including lived-experience panels), these are rarely implemented globally. Only a small proportion of our reviewed studies included any evaluation of guideline development practices. Conclusion: Our review highlights the importance and challenges of implementing community engagement in global health guideline development, which may involve adapting existing engagement methods to a global context, leveraging technology while encouraging diversity, and carefully balancing the costs and benefits of extensive engagement. Striving for inclusive guideline development processes can lead to effective and equitable health recommendations worldwide.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationGlobal HealthPractice Guidelines as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID41333710
PMCPMC12666598

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.