A Seat at the Table: Designing an Activity-Based Community Advisory Committee With People Living With HIV Who Use Drugs

Co-designing a participatory evaluation of older adult partner engagement in the mcmaster collaborative for health and aging

Engagement of patients and the public in health research is crucial for ensuring research relevance and alignment with community needs. However, there is a lack of nuanced evaluations and examples that promote collaborative and reflective learning about partnerships with partners. The aim of this paper is to provide a case example of a participatory evaluation of the engagement of older adult partners in an aging-focused research centre. We outline our process of co-planning and implementing an evaluation of the McMaster Collaborative for Health and Aging's engagement strategy through the use of multiple methods, including a standardized tool and qualitative approaches. The team chose to explore and capture the engagement experiences and perspectives of the older adult partners within the Collaborative using a survey (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)), an art-based method (photovoice), and a focus group. We present a brief summary of the findings but primarily focus this paper on the experiences of using each methodology and tool, with an emphasis on promoting dialogue on the benefits, limitations, and challenges. We reflect on the process of co-planning and the integration of both standardized tools and qualitative approaches to adopt a holistic approach to evaluating partnership within the Collaborative. Ultimately, this case example aims to provide practical guidance for other research groups navigating the complexities of partnership engagement and evaluation, thereby promoting meaningful partnerships in research.

Co-designing an Outreach Intervention for Women Experiencing Street-Involvement and Gender-Based Violence: Community-Academic Partnerships in Action

Outreach is an important approach to improve health and social care for women experiencing street involvement (SI) or gender-based violence (GBV). Few studies have examined outreach approaches that incorporate SI and GBV. Drawing on feminist theories and principles of community-based research, we detail an inclusive co-design approach for an outreach intervention considering these interrelated contexts. Women with lived experience, researchers, and service leaders drew on research and experiential knowledge to define outreach engagement principles: tackling GBV, personhood and relational engagement, trauma-informed engagement, and harm reduction engagement. The resulting intervention integrates these principles to enable building and sustaining relationships to facilitate care.

Promoting health equity in HIV prevention and treatment research: a practical guide to establishing, implementing, and sustaining community advisory boards

Over the last 25 years, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as an innovative methodological approach to break down the barriers toward health equity in biopsychosocial research. Although there are several methods one can use to conduct CBPR research, one widely used established tool that has shown to be effective for engaging community meaningfully in research is community advisory boards (CABs). CABs are formalized collaborative bodies consisting of community and research stakeholders and have been integral in engaging underserved groups experiencing HIV-related health inequities at the early stages of the AIDS crisis. Even though evidence suggests that CABs are an effective tool for conducting high-quality, rigorous, and community-centered HIV-related research, there are minimal guidelines summarizing the steps needed for developing and maintaining a CAB. Therefore, to fill this gap in the literature, this article offers a practical guide to help researchers with minimal experience, particularly graduate students and early-stage investigators, feel more comfortable with establishing a CAB for equity-focused HIV-related research. This article synthesizes already established guidelines and frameworks for CAB development while specifically outlining unique steps related to the three main stages of CAB formation - establishment, implementation, and sustainment. Throughout this article, the authors offer tension points, generated from the literature and with consultation from a CAB working alongside the authors, that researchers and community partners may need to navigate during each of these three stages. In addition, best practices from the literature are identified for each step in the guidelines so that readers can see firsthand how research groups have carried out these steps in their own practice.

The generative potential of mess in community-based participatory research with young people who use(d) drugs in Vancouver

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is increasingly standard practice for critical qualitative health research with young people who use(d) drugs in Vancouver, Canada. One aim of CBPR in this context is to redress the essentialization, erasure, and exploitation of people who use(d) drugs in health research. In this paper, we reflect on a partnership that began in 2018 between three university researchers and roughly ten young people (ages 17–28) who have current or past experience with drug use and homelessness in Greater Vancouver. We focus on moments when our guiding principles of shared leadership, safety, and inclusion became fraught in practice, forcing us in some cases to re-imagine these principles, and in others to accept that certain ethical dilemmas in research can never be fully resolved. We argue that this messiness can be traced to the complex and diverse positionalities of each person on our team, including young people. As such, creating space for mess was ethically necessary and empirically valuable for our CBPR project.

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.

Journeying together: A visual exploration of "engagement" as a journey in HIV programming and service delivery

The experiences of people living with, or impacted by HIV, who participate in research and programming are relatively-well documented. However, how stakeholders within the HIV sector understand engagement, or how it functions discursively, is undertheorized. We used a comparative case study design and photovoice to explore engagement in three community-based organizations providing HIV programs or services in Toronto, Canada. We invited stakeholders to photograph their subjective understandings of engagement. We employ a visual and thematic analysis of our findings, by focusing on participants' use of journey metaphors to discuss engagement within and across sites. Visual metaphors of journey were employed by participants to make sense of their experience, and demonstrated that for many, engagement was a dynamic, affective and relational process. Our findings illustrate how journey may be an apt metaphor to explore the relational, contingent and socio-spatial/political specificities of engagement within and across HIV organizations. We conclude with a discussion on implications for practice.