Using theory of change frameworks to develop evaluation strategies for research engagement: results of a pre-pilot study

Addressing Ethical Challenges in US-Based HIV Phylogenetic Research

In recent years, phylogenetic analysis of HIV sequence data has been used in research studies to investigate transmission patterns between individuals and groups, including analysis of data from HIV prevention clinical trials, in molecular epidemiology, and in public health surveillance programs. Phylogenetic analysis can provide valuable information to inform HIV prevention efforts, but it also has risks, including stigma and marginalization of groups, or potential identification of HIV transmission between individuals. In response to these concerns, an interdisciplinary working group was assembled to address ethical challenges in US-based HIV phylogenetic research. The working group developed recommendations regarding (1) study design; (2) data security, access, and sharing; (3) legal issues; (4) community engagement; and (5) communication and dissemination. The working group also identified areas for future research and scholarship to promote ethical conduct of HIV phylogenetic research.

What lessons it might teach us? Community engagement in HIV research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Partnerships between academia and the community led to historic advances in HIV and paved the way for ongoing community engagement in research. Three decades later, we review the state of community engagement in HIV research, discuss best practices as supported by literature, explore innovations, and identify ongoing gaps in knowledge.

RECENT FINDINGS

The community of people living with and at risk for HIV remains actively involved in the performance of HIV research. However, the extent of participation is highly variable despite long standing and established principles and guidelines of good participatory practices (GPP) and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Current literature reveals that known barriers to successful community engagement continue to exist such as power differences, and poor scientific or cultural competency literacy. Several high-quality studies share their experiences overcoming these barriers and demonstrate the potential of CBPR through reporting of qualitative and quantitative outcomes.

SUMMARY

Greater time and attention should be placed on the development of community engagement in HIV research. A large body of literature, including innovative cross-cutting approaches, exists to guide and inform best practices and mitigate common barriers. However, we recognize that true growth and expansion of CBPR within HIV and in other fields will require a greater breadth of research reporting qualitative and quantitative outcomes.

Lessons learned from engaging communities for Ebola vaccine trials in Sierra Leone: reciprocity, relatability, relationships and respect (the four R's)

BACKGROUND

Building trust and engaging the community are important for biomedical trials. This was core to the set up and delivery of the EBOVAC-Salone and PREVAC Ebola vaccine trials in Sierra Leone during and following the 2014-2016 West African Ebola epidemic. Local community liaison teams (CLT) engaged with the community through public meetings, radio chat shows, and other activities, while a social science team (SST) assessed community members' and participants' perceptions and regularly updated the clinical team to adapt procedures to improve the acceptability and compliance of the trial. The objective of this study was to examine the community engagement (CE) program in these trials and to identify potential barriers and facilitators.

METHODS

Fifteen CLT and SST members participated in in-depth interviews and 23 community members attended three focus groups to discuss the Ebola vaccine trials and their experiences and perspectives of the CE activities.

RESULTS

A key aim of the CE program was to build trust between the community and the trial. Four main principles (the "four R's") evolved from the discussions with team members and the community that influenced this trust: reciprocity, relatability, relationships and respect. The CLT and SST ensured reciprocal communication between the trial team and the community. The CLT delivered key messages from the trial, whilst the SST completed ethnographic research in the field to uncover rumors and perceptions of the trial in the community. These ethnographic findings were shared with the CLT and addressed in targeted messaging to the community. Both the CLT and SST approached the communities in an egalitarian manner, by dressing modestly, speaking local dialects, and using relatable examples. Appreciation and understanding of the importance of interpersonal relationships and respect for the people, their customs, and traditions also played a large role in the CE program.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide an in-depth understanding of how interdisciplinary community liaison and social science teams can work with a clinical team to strengthen trust. The four R's suggest the ways in which trust relations are central to CE and confidence in vaccine trials, and could offer an approach to CE in vaccine trials.