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.

Managing community engagement in research in Uganda: insights from practices in HIV/AIDS research

Background

Community engagement (CE) in research is valuable for instrumental and intrinsic reasons. Despite existing guidance on how to ensure meaningful CE, much of what it takes to achieve this goal differs across settings. Considering the emerging trend towards mandating CE in many research studies, this study aimed at documenting how CE is conceptualized and implemented, and then providing context-specific guidance on how researchers and research regulators in Uganda could think about and manage CE in research.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews and focus group discussions involving forty-one respondents who were experienced in HIV/AIDS biomedical research involving CE. Thirty-eight of these were directly or indirectly associated with Uganda’s leading research institution in the field of HIV/AIDS. They included Principal Investigators, Community Liaisons Officers, Research Ethics Committee members and Community Advisory Board Members. Three respondents were from Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Data were collected between August 2019 and August 2020, using audio-taped focus group discussions and key informant interviews, transcribed and analyzed manually to generate themes and subthemes.

Results

Three major themes emerged: goals or value of CE; the means of CE, and, the evaluation of CE. Goals or value of CE generated four subthemes representing the overarching goals of CE: (1) Promote communities’ agency; (2) Generate and sustain trust; (3) Protect and promote communities’ rights and interests; and, (4) Help studies optimize participation in the form of enrolment and retention of participants. What usually comes under the nomenclatures of methods, strategies, and approaches of CE, such as town-hall meetings, sports events, drama, and the like, should simply be understood as the means of CE, and it is not desirable to hold pre-conceived and fixed ideas about the best means to conduct CE in research since a lot depend on the context. Finally, the study found that despite CE’s critical importance, which suggests the need to track and evaluate it, CE is currently intermittently evaluated, and for inadequate motivations.

Conclusions

Existing guidance on how to conduct robust CE in research is no substitute for creativity, flexibility, and reflexivity on the part of both researchers and research regulators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00797-6.

Very young adolescent perceptions of growing up in rural southwest Uganda: Influences on sexual development and behavior

Very young adolescents (VYAs) are at the beginning of major physical, cognitive, emotional, and social changes that will set the course for a lifetime of health risks or resilience and yet, they have been largely an invisible group in global health research. The study explored perceptions of VYAs of the context for adolescence in rural Uganda and how these perceptions relate to sexual and reproductive health. Twenty VYAs, aged 11-14 from a southwest province in Uganda participated; 10 girls and 10 boys. All were of low socioeconomic status and attending school. With Institutional Review Board approval, a community-based participatory design was used with community advisory board (CAB) guidance. Community mapping and photovoice were data collection strategies as deemed developmentally appropriate for this age group. VYAs narrated their maps and photographs in focus groups. Field notes were taken on observations of adolescent life in the villages. The CAB assisted in the interpretation of data. Focus group interview transcripts and field notes were thematically analyzed and triangulated with observational field notes to verify and amplify findings. VYAs dichotomized people and places that offered support and protection or exposure to risk and vulnerability. Cultural norms (gendered expectations for roles and responsibilities, the primacy of work), the influences of significant others (peers, family, other important adults) and places in their environment that represented either safe havens or danger zones comprised the major themes. VYA perceptions of their context and experiences will contribute to design of developmentally appropriate and community tailored interventions to promote their health.

Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Community advisory boards (CABs) have expanded beyond high-income countries (HICs) and play an increasing role in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) research. Much research has examined CABs in HICs, but less is known about CABs in LMICs. The purposes of this scoping review are to examine the creation and implementation of CABs in LMICs, including identifying frequently reported challenges, and to discuss implications for research ethics.

METHODS

We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for publications describing or evaluating CABs in LMICs. Two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion. Data related to the following aspects of CABs were extracted from included publications: time, country, financial support, research focus, responsibilities, and challenges. Thematic analyses were used to summarize textual data describing challenges.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2005 citations, 83 of which were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies (65) were published between 2010 and 2017. Upper-middle-income countries were more likely to have studies describing CABs, with South Africa (17), China (8), and Thailand (7) having the greatest numbers. The United States National Institutes of Health was the main source of financial support for CABs. Many CABs (53/88, 60%) focused on HIV research. Thirty-four studies reported how CABs influenced the informed consent process for clinical trials or other aspects of research ethics. CAB responsibilities were related to clinical trials, including reviewing study protocols, educating local communities about research activities, and promoting the ethical conduct of research. Challenges faced by CABs included the following: incomplete ethical regulations and guidance; limited knowledge of science among members of communities and CABs; unstable and unbalanced power relationships between researchers and local communities; poor CAB management, including lack of formal participation structures and absence of CAB leadership; competing demands for time that limited participation in CAB activities; and language barriers between research staff and community members. Several challenges reflected shortcomings within the research team.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings examine the formation and implementation of CABs in LMICs and identify several ethical challenges. These findings suggest the need for further ethics training among CAB members and researchers in LMICs.

Stroke Investigative Research and Education Network: Public Outreach and Engagement

Stroke is becoming a leading cause of disability and death, and a major public health concern in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The Stroke Investigative Research and Education Network (SIREN) seeks to comprehensively characterize the genomic, sociocultural, economic, and behavioral risk factors for stroke and to build effective teams for research to address and decrease the burden of stroke and other non-communicable diseases in SSA. One of the first steps to address this goal was to effectively engage the communities that suffer high burdens of disease in SSA. This paper describes the process of SIREN project's community engagement activities in Ghana and Nigeria. The aims of community engagement (CE) within SIREN are to: i) elucidate information about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices (KABP) about stroke and its risk factors from individuals of African ancestry in SSA; ii) educate the community about stroke and ways to decrease disabilities and deaths from stroke; and iii) recruit 3000 control research subjects to participate in a case-control stroke study. CE focused on three-pronged activities-constitution and interaction with Community Advisory Board (CABs), Focus Group Discussions (n=27) and community education and outreach programs (n=88). FGDs and outreach programs indicate that knowledge of stroke, as well as risk factors and follow-up evidence-based care is limited and often late. Almost all indicated that genetic testing could help health provider’s better treat stroke and help scientists better understand the causes of stroke. Over 7000 individuals have received education on cardiovascular risk factors and about 5,000 have been screened for cardiovascular risk factors during the outreaches. The CE core within SIREN is a first of its kind public outreach engagement initiative to evaluate and address perceptions about stroke and genomics by patients, caregivers, and local leaders in SSA and has implications as a model for assessment in other high stroke risk populations.

Within and beyond the communal turn to informed consent in industry-sponsored pharmacogenetics research: merits and challenges of community advisory boards

The one-size-fits-all paradigm of drug development fails to address inter-individual variability in drug response. Pharmacogenetics research aims at studying the role of genotypic differences in drug response. Recently, the pharmaceutical industry has shown interest to embed pharmacogenetics studies in the process of drug development. Nevertheless, population-based and commercial aspects of such future-oriented studies pose challenges for individually based informed consent (IC). As an exemplar of the communal turn to IC procedures, community advisory boards (CABs) have been integrated into different types of medical research. CABs hold the promise of organizing the relationship between participants and researchers in a more reciprocal and participatory way, offering possible means of overcoming the lapses of individualistic IC. However, the involvement of CABs with pharmacogenetics research might be rife with difficulties, uncertainties, and challenges. The current study first reviews the existing literature to discuss added values and challenges of relying on CABs as a supplement to individually based IC. Then, the particular moral and regulatory landscape of pharmacogenetics research will be delineated to argue that community engagement is both necessary and promising beyond the communal turn to IC processes. Three main features of the landscape include (1) new supportive stances that some regulatory bodies have adopted toward pharmacogenetics research, (2) the motivation of the industry to draw reception and trust from the subpopulations, and (3) the important role of the society in generating and embedding pharmacogenetics knowledge. Finally, some points to consider will be discussed to contextualize relying on CABs within this landscape.

"A place at the table:" a qualitative analysis of community board members' experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research

BACKGROUND

Community advisory boards (CAB) are proposed as one mechanism to carry out successful community based participatory research (CBPR), but the presence of CABs may be insufficient to optimize academic-community partnerships.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with minority members of a CAB partnered with a HIV/AIDS research center and identified three themes.

RESULTS

First, lack of trust in researchers included two subthemes: researchers' lacked respect for community-based organizations' (CBO's) interests and paid inadequate attention to building trust. Second, power imbalance included three subthemes: CAB members felt like inferior "token" members, felt that a lack of communication led to disempowerment, and held preconceived beliefs of researchers that led to perceived power imbalance. Third, CAB members suggested best practices, including using collaborations to build trust, actively allocating power, and sharing tangible research benefits with CBOs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that CABs must be founded on trust and instilled with power to meet the tenets of CBPR.