ArticleMalaria journal2026
What does monkey malaria mean to you? A participatory photovoice study in rural Malaysian Borneo.
Article in Malaria journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundZoonotic (monkey) malaria, caused by Plasmodium knowlesi, is an escalating concern in Sabah, Malaysia, where humans, macaques and mosquito vectors share overlapping ecosystems. Conventional research methods often overlook how affected communities perceive and respond to this risk within their cultural and environmental contexts. This study uses photovoice, a participatory visual method to explore the question 'What does monkey malaria mean to you? and to elevate community voices in guiding locally relevant disease prevention strategies.
methodsFrom January to May 2024, twenty participants aged 18 to 62 from three rural Sabah villages captured photographs over a 20-day period using their smartphones to document their experiences and perceptions on monkey malaria. Follow-up focus group discussions (FGDs) enabled participants to collectively reflect on and interpret their images. Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to the visual and verbal data and findings. Digital tools supported coordination and data management without replacing the participant-researcher engagement.
resultsFive interrelated themes were generated: (1) monkey malaria as an embedded, everyday risk, (2) community resilience manifested through locally derived practices, (3) structural and socio-ecological challenges shaping exposure, (4) the interface of human, wildlife, and environmental health, (5) cultural knowledge and blended practices for coping with malaria risk. Participants articulated how landscape features, economic dependence on forested and plantation areas, and daily routines collectively structure risk, reflecting a dynamic 'landscape of risk'. They also expressed aspirations for collaborative and culturally appropriate strategies.
conclusionUsing photovoice, participants described how malaria risk is part of their everyday lives, the coping strategies they use and the social and environmental conditions that influence their understanding. By prioritising community voices, the findings show that effective malaria control should go beyond strictly biomedical models to include local priorities, cultural practices and lived experience. Photovoice generated deep insights grounded in the community context and encouraged meaningful participation, providing useful guidance for designing intervention strategies that are culturally appropriate and more sustainable.
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.