Cited by 80Ethics in Clinical ResearchQualitative Research Methods and EthicsCommunity Health and Development

Community engagement on the Thai-Burmese border: rationale, experience and lessons learnt.

Open access
Cheah, Phaik Yeong, Lwin, Khin Maung, Phaiphun, Lucy, Maelankiri, Ladda, Parker, Michael, Day, Nicholas P., White, Nicholas J., Nosten, François·2010·International Health

Abstract

Community engagement is increasingly promoted in developing countries, especially in international health research, but there is little published experience. The Shoklo Malaria Research Unit (SMRU) conducts research with refugees, migrant workers, displaced people, and day migrants on the Thai-Burmese border, and has recently facilitated the set up of the Tak Province Border Community Ethics Advisory Board (T-CAB). Valuable lessons have been learnt from consultation with the T-CAB especially in the area of participant recruitment and the informed consent process. A lot of new research questions have emerged from consultation with the T-CAB. This paper describes our experience, lessons learnt and the unique challenges faced working with the T-CAB from its initial conception to date. We conclude that consultation with the T-CAB has made improvements in our research in particular operational and ethical aspects of our studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.inhe.2010.02.001

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 2008, increased community engagement resulted from the Tak Province Community Advisory Board in Thailand, which comprised community members, advised design, process and outcomes of interest, and subsequently approved or disapproved all studies conducted at SMRU.

    “In 2008, increased community engagement resulted from the Tak Province Community Advisory Board in Thailand. This group, comprised of community members were asked to advise design, process and outcomes of interest, and subsequently approved (or disapproved) all studies conducted at SMRU. 26 , 27”

    From Cohort Profile: the SMRU Refugee and Migrant Pregnancy Study in Western Thailand and Eastern Myanmar (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For the informal staff questionnaire consent was not deemed necessary by the Tak Border Committee Advisory Board because no-risk was thought to be attached.

    “For the informal staff questionnaire consent was not deemed necessary by the Tak Border Committee Advisory Board because no-risk was thought to be attached [16].”
  • As older people and those in greater authority positions are highly respected in this setting, younger, first-time mothers may have felt intimidated and spoken out less in the presence of older, more experienced mothers.

    “As older people and those in greater authority positions are highly respected in this setting, younger, first-time mothers may have felt intimidated and spoken out less in the presence of older, more experienced mothers [34].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheah, P. Y., Lwin, K. M., Phaiphun, L., Maelankiri, L., Parker, M., Day, N. P., White, N. J., & Nosten, F.
Affiliations
  • Mahidol University (TH)
  • Shoklo Malaria Research Unit (TH)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Cheah, Phaik Yeong
Venue
International Health
Published
2010-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
123-129
ISSN
  • 1876-3405 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-3413
OpenAlex
W2127717574
Cited by
80
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (090207, 093956)
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
community participation, community advisory board, research ethics, informed consent, participant recruitment, refugees, migrant workers, displaced persons, malaria research, Thai-Myanmar border, Shoklo Malaria Research Unit, Tak Province

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review