Improving ethical and participatory practice for marginalized populations in biomedical HIV prevention trials: lessons from Thailand

Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure

INTRODUCTION

Achieving effective community engagement has been an objective of U.S. National Institutes of Health-funded HIV research efforts, including participation of persons with HIV. Community Advisory Boards (CABs) have remained the predominant model for community engagement since their creation in 1989. As HIV cure-directed research efforts have grown into larger academic-industry partnerships directing resources toward both basic and clinical research under the Martin Delaney Collaboratories (MDC), community input models have also evolved. The BEAT-HIV MDC Collaboratory, based at The Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, United States, implemented a three-part model for community engagement that has shown success in providing greater impact for community engagement across basic, biomedical, and social sciences research efforts.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we review the case study of the formation of the BEAT-HIV Community Engagement Group (CEG) model, starting with the historical partnership between The Wistar Institute as a basic research center and Philadelphia FIGHT as a not-for-profit community-based organization (CBO), and culminating with the growth of community engagement under the BEAT-HIV MDC. Second, we present the impact of a cooperative structure including a Community Advisory Board (CAB), CBO, and researchers through the BEAT-HIV CEG model, and highlight collaborative projects that demonstrate the potential strengths, challenges, and opportunities of this model. We also describe challenges and future opportunities for the use of the CEG model.

CONCLUSIONS

Our CEG model integrating a CBO, CAB and scientists could help move us towards the goal of effective, equitable and ethical engagement in HIV cure-directed research. In sharing our lessons learned, challenges and growing pains, we contribute to the science of community engagement into biomedical research efforts with an emphasis on HIV cure-directed research. Our documented experience with implementing the CEG supports greater discussion and independent implementation efforts for this model to engage communities into working teams in a way we find a meaningful, ethical, and sustainable model in support of basic, clinical/biomedical, social sciences and ethics 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.

Establishing trust in HIV/HCV research among people who inject drugs (PWID): Insights from empirical research

BACKGROUND

The establishment of trust between researchers and participants is critical to advance HIV and HCV prevention particularly among people who inject drugs (PWID) and other marginalized populations, yet empirical research on how to establish and maintain trust in the course of community health research is lacking. This paper documents ideas about trust between research participants and researchers amongst a sub-sample of PWID who were enrolled in a large, multi-year community health study of social networks and HIV/HCV risk that was recently conducted in rural Puerto Rico.

METHODS

Qualitative research was nested within a multi-year Social Network and HIV/HCV Risk study involving N = 360 PWID > 18 years of age living in four small, rural Puerto Rican communities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between March 2017 and April 2017 with a subset of 40 active PWID who had been enrolled in the parent study. Interview questions invited participants to draw upon their recent experience as research participants to better understand how PWID perceive and understand participant-researcher trust within the context of HIV/HCV-related epidemiological research.

RESULTS

Fear of police, stigma and concerns regarding confidentiality and anonymity were identified as structural factors that could compromise participation in HIV/HCV-related research for PWID. While monetary compensation was an important motivation, participants also valued the opportunity to learn about their HIV/HCV status. During their participation in the study, gaining knowledge of safe injection practices was perceived as a valuable benefit. Participant narratives suggested that PWID may adopt an incremental and ongoing approach in their assessment of the trustworthiness of researchers, continuously assessing the extent to which they trust the research staff throughout the course of the research. Trust was initially generated through peer Respondent Driven Sampling recruitment. Research staff who maintained a presence in the community for the entire duration of the prospective study reinforced trust between participants and the research team.

CONCLUSION

Although PWID face numerous structural barriers to research-related trust in HIV/HCV research, we found that using a peer-based recruitment method like RDS, and employing a research staff who are knowledgeable about the targeted population, culturally sensitive to their needs, and who maintain a long-term presence in the community may help mitigate many of these barriers. The reputation of the research is built incrementally as participants join the study. This contributes to a "street reputation" that grows as current or former participants vouch for the study. Establishing trust was identified as only the first step towards building a collaborative relationship with participants, and our findings suggest that steps to address criminalization and stigmatization also are necessary to support research trust.

Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines.

METHODS

We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow-up, results and dissemination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty-eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high-income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle-income countries and nine (8.3%) in low-income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty-five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV-affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at-risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post-trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.

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

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate community and stakeholder engagement can lead to accusations that research is unethical and can delay or slow research or translation of results to practice. Such experiences have led major funders as well as regulatory and advisory bodies to establish minimal requirements for community and stakeholder engagement in HIV and other clinical research. However, systematic efforts to formally evaluate the contributions and impact of particular practices are lacking.

METHODS

A theory of change framework aligned with Good Participatory Practice for TB clinical trials was used to develop a set of measures for use in a minimally burdensome survey of trial implementing sites. The survey was pre-piloted with three TB trial sites in North America, South America and Asia to assess the feasibility of surveying global research sites in a systematic way, and to see if the measures captured informative variation in the use of engagement strategies and desired outcomes. Surveys were conducted at baseline and six months. In-depth interviews were conducted with site staff prior to the baseline survey to understand how sites conceptualized the concepts underlying the framework and the extent to which they viewed their work as aligned with the framework.

RESULTS

Survey measures captured considerable variability in the intensity and variety of engagement strategies, both across sites and within sites over time, and moderate variability in outcomes. Interviews indicated that underlying concepts were often unfamiliar to staff at baseline, but the goals of engagement aligned well with existing values.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief, targeted surveys of trial sites to characterize use of broad strategies, specific practices and some outcomes are a feasible option for evaluating good participatory practice. Additional testing is warranted to assess and enhance validity, reliability and predictive value of indicators. Options for collecting outcome measures through additional objective means should be explored.

A Missing Piece in Clinical Trial Inspections in Latin America: Interviews With Research Subjects in Peru

Most regulatory agencies conduct clinical trial (CT) site inspections, but the experiences and behaviors of research subjects and their knowledge of the rights and obligations that ensue from participating in a CT are seldom explored. The authors assessed the technical feasibility of incorporating interviews with participants in CT inspections. This article analyzes the responses of 13 CT participants, 14% ( n = 96) of those included in three tuberculosis (TB) CTs. Participants did not object to being interviewed and provided information not obtained during regular inspections. Participants were appreciative of the agency's concern for the integrity of the CT process. Most interviewees did not understand the consent form and were unaware that they were participating in an experiment with unapproved new drugs. Participants' decision to enroll in CT related to undue inducement and therapeutic misconception. Some patients' behaviors, undisclosed to researchers, could have compromised the integrity of the data collected.

Defining and Negotiating the Social Value of Research in Public Health Facilities: Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Research-Active Province of South Africa

This article reports on qualitative research conducted in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, among researchers and gate-keepers of health facilities in the province. Results suggest disparate but not irreconcilable perceptions of the social value of research in provincial health facilities. This study found that researchers tended to emphasize the contribution of research to the generation of knowledge and to the health of future patients while gate-keepers of health facilities tended to emphasize its contribution to the healthcare system and to current patients. Furthermore, relations between research stakeholders were perceived to be somewhat fragile, making it difficult for stakeholders to achieve consensus about the social value of research, as well as on ways to maximize value. Interventions to negotiate a shared perspective on the social value of research would appear to be warranted, and the findings of this study suggest some focus areas for such intervention.

Frontline Health Service Providers' Perspectives on HIV Vaccine Trials among Female Sex Workers and Men Who Have Sex with Men in Karnataka, South India

Background

Little qualitative research is available on the role of frontline health service providers (FHSPs) in the implementation of clinical trials, particularly in developing countries. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study about the perspectives of FHSPs on future HIV vaccine trials involving female sex workers (FSWs) and men who have sex with men (MSM) in three districts of Karnataka, India. In particular, we explore FHSPs’ knowledge of and views on clinical trials in general, and examine their potential willingness to play a role if such trials were introduced or implemented in the region.

Methods

A field team of four researchers from Karnataka—two of whom self-identified with FSW or MSM communities (“community researchers”) and two with backgrounds in social work—conducted in-depth interviews with FHSPs. Including community researchers in the study helped to build rapport with FSW and MSM participants and facilitate in-depth discussions. A coding scheme for transcribed and translated data was developed using a framework analysis approach. Data was then analysed thematically using a combination of a priori and emergent codes.

Results

Over half of FHSPs demonstrated limited knowledge or understanding of clinical trials. Despite reported skepticism around the testing of HIV vaccines in developing countries and concerns around potential side effects, most FHSPs strongly advocated for the implementation of HIV vaccine clinical trials in Karnataka. Further, most FHSPs expressed their willingness to be involved in future HIV vaccine clinical trials in varying capacities.

Conclusion

Given that FHSPs are often directly involved in the promotion of health and well-being of FSWs and MSM, they are well-positioned to play leadership, ethical, and communicative roles in future HIV vaccine trials. However, our findings reveal a lack of awareness of clinical trials among FHSP participants, suggesting an important area for capacity building and staff development before viable and ethical clinical trials can be set up in the region.

Towards a Science of Community Stakeholder Engagement in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: An Embedded Four-Country Case Study

OBJECTIVES

Broad international guidelines and studies in the context of individual clinical trials highlight the centrality of community stakeholder engagement in conducting ethically rigorous HIV prevention trials. We explored and identified challenges and facilitators for community stakeholder engagement in biomedical HIV prevention trials in diverse global settings. Our aim was to assess and deepen the empirical foundation for priorities included in the GPP guidelines and to highlight challenges in implementation that may merit further attention in subsequent GPP iterations.

METHODS

From 2008-2012 we conducted an embedded, multiple case study centered in Thailand, India, South Africa and Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with respondents from different trial-related subsystems: civil society organization representatives, community advocates, service providers, clinical trialists/researchers, former trial participants, and key HIV risk populations. Interviews/focus groups were recorded, and coded using thematic content analysis. After intra-case analyses, we conducted cross-case analysis to contrast and synthesize themes and sub-themes across cases. Lastly, we applied the case study findings to explore and assess UNAIDS/AVAC GPP guidelines and the GPP Blueprint for Stakeholder Engagement.

RESULTS

Across settings, we identified three cross-cutting themes as essential to community stakeholder engagement: trial literacy, including lexicon challenges and misconceptions that imperil sound communication; mistrust due to historical exploitation; and participatory processes: engaging early; considering the breadth of "community"; and, developing appropriate stakeholder roles. Site-specific challenges arose in resource-limited settings and settings where trials were halted.

CONCLUSIONS

This multiple case study revealed common themes underlying community stakeholder engagement across four country settings that largely mirror GPP goals and the GPP Blueprint, as well as highlighting challenges in the implementation of important guidelines. GPP guidance documents could be strengthened through greater focus on: identifying and addressing the community-specific roots of mistrust and its impact on trial literacy activities; achieving and evaluating representativeness in community stakeholder groups; and addressing the impact of power and funding streams on meaningful engagement and independent decision-making.