Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research

The "3 Ps" of EmPowerment, Partnership and Protection - Stakeholder Perceptions of Beneficial Outcomes of Engagement in HIV Prevention Trials

Background: Stakeholder engagement is increasingly recognized as a key component of ethical research in leading ethics guidelines. Ethics commentators have also argued that engagement has several beneficial outcomes for the field. Aim: This paper reports on the beneficial outcomes of stakeholder engagement in HIV prevention trials as perceived by stakeholders in the field. Method: We conducted 28 interviews between 2019 and 2021 with interviewees from various stakeholder groups in 12 countries and used thematic analysis to analyze the transcripts. Findings: We found three major themes - namely emPowerment where engagement is perceived to empower stakeholders, Partnerships where engagement is perceived to build equitable relationships and Protections where engagement is perceived to strengthen protections for participants and community stakeholders and to improve science. Conclusions: These findings map closely onto beneficial outcomes envisaged by ethics guidelines, however, the relationship between outcomes seen as beneficial deserves further exploration.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research

BACKGROUND

In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research.

OBJECTIVES

The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research.

DISCUSSION

Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding.

CONCLUSION

We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

Maternal mental health research in Malawi: Community and healthcare provider perspectives on acceptability and ethicality

Maternal mental health (MMH) is recognised as globally significant. The prevalence of depression and factors associated with its onset among perinatal women in Malawi has been previously reported, and the need for further research in this domain is underscored. Yet, there is little published scholarship regarding the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research to women and community representatives. The study reported here sought to address this in Malawi by engaging with communities and healthcare providers in the districts where MMH research was being planned. Qualitative data was collected in Lilongwe and Karonga districts through 20 focus group discussions and 40 in-depth interviews with community representatives and healthcare providers from January through April 2021. All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim (in local languages Chichewa and Tumbuka), translated into English, and examined through thematic content analysis. Participants' accounts suggest that biopsychosocial MMH research could be broadly acceptable within the communities sampled, with acceptability framed in part through prior encounters with biomedical and public health research and care in these regions, alongside broader understandings of the import of MMH. Willingness and consent to participate do not depend on specifically biomedical understandings of MMH, but rather on familiarity with individuals regarded as living with mental ill-health. However, the data further suggest some 'therapeutic misconceptions' about MMH research, with implications for how investigations in this area are presented by researchers when recruiting and working with participants. Further studies are needed to explore whether accounts of the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research shift and change during and following research encounters. Such studies will enhance the production of granular recommendations for further augmenting the ethicality of biomedical and public health research and researchers' responsibilities to participants and communities.

Multidisciplinary approach to community engagement in global public health research

  Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the role of community engagement in knowledge production and ethical issues such as 'helicopter research', indicating exploitative research activities of some researchers as well as short-term relationships with research communities especially in low- and middle-income countries. This approach is detrimental to both communities and the larger scientific community as this may breed mistrust. Major institutions such as the National Institute of Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom have highlighted the importance of community engagement as a tool to improve the reach, quality, and impact of the research by incorporating the voices and concerns of marginalized communities. Similarly, in its 2022 guidance, the American Society for Human Genetics (ASGH) highlights the need to address underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement. Establishing ethical and meaningful long-term relationships can be challenging especially for researchers who are not members of the community or those from other countries. This article describes how 'community-engaged research' can address some ethical challenges in global public health in different cultural settings.

Community Engagement in Precision Medicine Research: Organizational Practices and Their Impacts for Equity

BACKGROUND

In the wake of mandates for biomedical research to increase participation by members of historically underrepresented populations, community engagement (CE) has emerged as a key intervention to help achieve this goal.

METHODS

Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, we examine how stakeholders in precision medicine research understand and seek to put into practice ideas about who to engage, how engagement should be conducted, and what engagement is for.

RESULTS

We find that ad hoc, opportunistic, and instrumental approaches to CE exacted significant consequences for the time and resources devoted to engagement and the ultimate impacts it has on research. Critical differences emerged when engagement and research decisionmaking were integrated with each other versus occurring in parallel, separate parts of the study organization, and whether community members had the ability to determine which issues would be brought to them for consideration or to revise or even veto proposals made upstream based on criteria that mattered to them. CE was understood to have a range of purposes, from instrumentally facilitating recruitment and data collection, to advancing community priorities and concerns, to furthering long-term investments in relationships with and changes in communities. These choices about who to engage, what engagement activities to support, how to solicit and integrate community input into the workflow of the study, and what CE was for were often conditioned upon preexisting perceptions and upstream decisions about study goals, competing priorities, and resource availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Upstream choices about CE and constraints of time and resources cascade into tradeoffs that often culminated in "pantomime community engagement." This approach can create downstream costs when engagement is experienced as improvised and sporadic. Transformations are needed for CE to be seen as a necessary scientific investment and part of the scientific process.

Regulation of community advisory boards during conduct of clinical trials in Uganda: a qualitative study involving stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Community advisory structures such as Community Advisory Boards (CABs) play an important role of helping researchers to better understand the community at each phase of the clinical trial. CABs can be a source of accurate information on the community, its perception of proposed research and may identify factors that make community members vulnerable to the problem under investigation. Although CABs help to build mutually beneficial relationships between the researcher(s) and the communities in which the clinical trial is being implemented, effective engagement would require ethical guidance and regulatory oversight. The study assessed the stakeholders' perspectives regarding the regulatory oversight of CABs in Uganda.

METHODS

This was an exploratory study employing qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with the trial investigators, CAB chairpersons, community liaison officers, regulators and Research Ethics Committee (REC) chairpersons were conducted. A KII guide was designed and utilized during key informant interviews. The guide included questions on role of investigators and CAB members in clinical trials; challenges of community engagement; facilitation of CABs; regulatory oversight of CABs; work relationships between investigators and CABs; and opinions on how community trials should be conducted among others. All interviews were conducted in English. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim. A code book was generated based on the transcripts and study objectives. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data and identify themes. Atlas ti was used to support data analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 34 respondents, 35.3% were investigators, 32.3% CAB chairpersons, 23.5% research regulators/REC Chairs and 8.8% community liaison officers. The findings of the study revealed that CABs are appointed by the research institution/researcher, operate under the guidance of the researcher with limited independence. Additionally, the CABs provide voluntary service and lack guidelines or regulatory oversight. Four themes emerged.

CONCLUSION

The operations and activities of CABs are not regulated by the national regulators or RECs. The regulatory oversight of CABs should be based on contextualized ethical guidelines. Need for additional training in research ethics, community engagement and sensitization on available ethics guidelines for research.

Data sharing and community-engaged research

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Testing a digitally distributed method to recruit a network of community organizations to fight the consequences of the drug epidemic: A study in 13 American states

To mitigate the opioid epidemic, a concerted effort to educate, prevent, diagnose, treat, and engage residents is required. In this study, a digitally distributed method to form a large network of organizations was tested with 99 counties in regions with high vulnerability to hepatitis C virus (HCV). The method involved a cascade of contacts going from email to phone calls, to videoconferencing and measuring the number of contacts required, amount of time taken, and the proportion of success at recruiting at least one community organization per county. A recruitment period of 5 months and 2118 contact attempts led to the recruitment of organizations from 73 out of our 99 target counties. Organizations belonging to health departments required more attempts and time to recruit but ultimately enrolled at higher rates than did other organizations such as coalitions and agencies. Organizations from counties more (vs. less) vulnerable to HCV outbreaks required more attempts to recruit and, using multiple recruitment methods (e.g., emails, phone calls, and Zoom meetings), improved enrollment success. Overall, this method proved to be successful at remotely engaging a large-scale network of communities with different levels of risk within a large geographic region.

Integration of stakeholder engagement from development to dissemination in genomic medicine research: Approaches and outcomes from the CSER Consortium

PURPOSE

There is a critical need for genomic medicine research that reflects and benefits socioeconomically and ancestrally diverse populations. However, disparities in research populations persist, highlighting that traditional study designs and materials may be insufficient or inaccessible to all groups. New approaches can be gained through collaborations with patient/community stakeholders. Although some benefits of stakeholder engagement are recognized, routine incorporation into the design and implementation of genomics research has yet to be realized.

METHODS

The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium required stakeholder engagement as a dedicated project component. Each CSER project planned and carried out stakeholder engagement activities with differing goals and expected outcomes. Examples were curated from each project to highlight engagement strategies and outcomes throughout the research lifecycle from development through dissemination.

RESULTS

Projects tailored strategies to individual study needs, logistical constraints, and other challenges. Lessons learned include starting early with engagement efforts across project stakeholder groups and planned flexibility to enable adaptations throughout the project lifecycle.

CONCLUSION

Each CSER project used more than 1 approach to engage with relevant stakeholders, resulting in numerous adaptations and tremendous value added throughout the full research lifecycle. Incorporation of community stakeholder insight improves the outcomes and relevance of genomic medicine research.

What Should Engagement in Health Research Look Like? Perspectives from People with Lived Experience, Members of the Public, and Engagement Managers

Engagement in health research is increasingly practised worldwide. Yet many questions remain under debate in the ethics field about its contribution to health research and these debates have largely not been informed by those who have been engaged in health research. This paper addresses the following key questions: what should the ethical goals of engagement in health research be and how should it be performed? Qualitative data were generated by interviewing 22 people with lived experience, members of the public, and engagement managers about power sharing in health research. Thematic analysis of study data identified the following five themes: the value of engagement in research, ideal engagement, tokenistic engagement, terms to describe those engaged, and engagement roles in research. The paper presents that data and then considers what insights it offers for what engagement should look like-its ethical goals and approach-according to those being engaged.

What Does “Good” Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does “good” CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what “good” CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what “good” CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community.

'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

Background: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly accepted as a critical aspect of health research, because of its potential to make research more ethical, relevant and well implemented. While CE activities linked to health research have proliferated in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and are increasingly described in published literature, there is a lack of conceptual clarity around how engagement is understood to 'work', and the aims and purposes of engagement are varied and often not made explicit. Ultimately, the evidence base for engagement remains underdeveloped. Methods: To develop explanations for how and why CE with health research contributes to the pattern of outcomes observed in published literature , we conducted a realist review of CE with malaria research - a theory driven approach to evidence synthesis. Results: We found that community engagement relies on the development of provisional 'working relationships' across differences, primarily of wealth, power and culture. These relationships are rooted in interactions that are experienced as relatively responsive and respectful, and that bring tangible research related benefits. Contextual factors affecting development of working relationships include the facilitating influence of research organisation commitment to and resources for engagement, and constraining factors linked to the prevailing 'dominant health research paradigm context', such as: differences of wealth and power between research centres and local populations and health systems; histories of colonialism and vertical health interventions; and external funding and control of health research. Conclusions: The development of working relationships contributes to greater acceptance and participation in research by local stakeholders, who are particularly interested in research related access to health care and other benefits. At the same time, such relationships may involve an accommodation of some ethically problematic characteristics of the dominant health research paradigm, and thereby reproduce this paradigm rather than challenge it with a different logic of collaborative partnership.

Operationalizing the Ethical Review of Global Health Policy and Systems Research: A Proposed Checklist

There has been growing consensus to develop relevant guidance to improve the ethical review of global health policy and systems research (HPSR) and address the current absence of formal ethics guidance.

Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?

Background

A key ethical question in genomics research relates to whether individual genetic research results should be disclosed to research participants and if so, which results are to be disclosed, by whom and when. Whilst this issue has received only scarce attention in African bioethics discourse, the extension of genomics research to the African continent has brought it into sharp focus.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we examined the views of adolescents, parents and caregivers participating in a paediatric and adolescent HIV-TB genomic study in Botswana on how solidarity and reciprocity obligations could guide decisions about feedback of individual genetic research results. Data were collected using deliberative focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

Results

Findings from 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents and caregivers) demonstrated the importance of considering solidarity and reciprocity obligations in decisions about the return of individual genetic research results to participants. Participants viewed research participation as a mutual relationship and expressed that return of research results would be one way in which research participation could be reciprocated. They noted that when reciprocity obligations are respected, participants feel valued and not respecting reciprocity expectations could undermine participant trust and participation in future studies.

Conclusions

We conclude that expectations of solidarity and reciprocity could translate into an obligation to feedback selected individual genetic research results in African genomics research.

Ethical challenges in community engagement practices in research during the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa

Community engagement (CE) has been highlighted as a key process in the prevention and transmission control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the nature of the virus and national response strategies such as social distancing have challenged traditional methods of community engagement. In this paper, we discuss the role of community engagement in research during COVID-19. We first set out the case for community engagement that emerges from international guidance for research during public health emergencies. We then describe the challenges that are emerging with community engagement in health research generally, and on COVID-19 related research specifically in Africa in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We further describe the strengths and weaknesses of the current engagement and communication platforms, and suggest ways to overcome some of these challenges. We provide an ethical argument for researchers and research institutions to respond directly to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic by responding to emergency health care needs of the community; and provide some challenges and critiques of such an approach. Finally, we support the call for concerted efforts in responding to the global pandemic, requiring flexibility in funding.