The paper by Hickey et al. (2022) addresses a question many global health researchers face but often find it hard to answer clearly: what does “good” community and public engagement look like in practice? Although community and public engagement are now widely recognised as essential in global health research and required by major funders such as the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), there is still no clear, practical guidance that explains what good engagement involves across different countries and contexts. There are existing frameworks that often focus on ethics, specific regions, or research approaches, but there is a gap in clear, flexible guidance that can apply broadly. This article contributes to filling that gap by identifying the key components that enable meaningful and effective engagement.
To achieve this, the authors analysed 139 progress reports from 53 NIHR-funded global health research units and groups working across 61 low- and middle-income countries between 2017 and 2019. They used thematic analysis, supported by NVivo for coding, to identify common enablers and barriers to effective engagement. The findings were then discussed and refined in a workshop involving researchers, community engagement specialists, and public contributors from different global regions. By combining real-world reporting data with shared reflections from practitioners and community voices, the study brings together practical experience and critical discussion to define what helps or hinders strong engagement in global health research.
The findings revealed that ‘good’ engagement is not a single activity but a set of interconnected practices (enablers) including adapting to local cultural norms and customs, treating community members with respect, recognising and addressing power imbalances between researchers and communities, and working carefully with local gatekeepers who can either enable or restrict access. The study also emphasised the importance of seeking genuine community involvement and ownership of research, ensuring that research priorities align with community needs, and avoiding overburdening the same communities with repeated studies. Additionally, there should be respect for local knowledge, and paternalistic approaches should be greatly avoided. Researchers should also be mindful of colonial histories and the use of language and behaviour that reduce hierarchy. All these are highlighted as key components of ‘good’ community engagement.
A central finding of the paper is the importance of investing in long-term relationships that go beyond the duration of a single project or funding cycle. The development of trust, the meaningful addressing of power imbalances, and creating lasting benefits for communities require sustained engagement over time. When funding structures of projects are short-term, they can limit the depth and continuity of these relationships, increasing the risk that engagement becomes superficial or transactional. The authors therefore emphasise that future efforts to define and guide “good” community and public engagement must continue to be developed in partnership with stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries and must give equal weight to community priorities alongside research objectives. Through this approach, global health research can become more relevant, equitable, and responsive to the needs of the communities involved.