ReviewBulletin of the World Health Organization2025
Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Urinary Incontinence's Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Quality of Life Impact on Working Women in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.