Community-researcher partnerships at NIAID HIV/AIDS CLINICAL trials sites: Insights for evaluation and enhancement

Division of Clinical Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.
Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action 09/2012; 6(3):311-20. DOI: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0034
Source: PubMed


Community engagement has been a cornerstone of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)'s HIV/AIDS clinical trials programs since 1990. Stakeholders now consider this critical to success, hence the impetus to develop evaluation approaches.
The purpose was to assess the extent to which community advisory boards (CABs) at HIV/AIDS trials sites are being integrated into research activities.
CABs and research staff (RS) at NIAID research sites were surveyed for how each viewed (a) the frequency of activities indicative of community involvement, (b) the means for identifying, prioritizing, and supporting CAB needs, and (c) mission and operational challenges.
Overall, CABs and RS share similar views about the frequency of community involvement activities. Cluster analysis reveals three groups of sites based on activity frequency ratings, including a group notable for CAB-RS discordance.
Assessing differences between community and researcher perceptions about the frequency of and challenges posed by specific engagement activities may prove useful in developing evaluation tools for assessing community engagement in collaborative research settings.

Download full-text


Available from: William Michael Trochim, Jan 23, 2014
1 Follower
21 Reads
  • JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 01/2014; 65:S1-S2. DOI:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000032 · 4.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Worldwide, more than 40% of the population is at risk from dengue and recent estimates suggest that up to 390 million dengue infections are acquired every year. The Eliminate Dengue (ED) Program is investigating the use of Wolbachia-infected, transmission-compromised, mosquitoes to reduce dengue transmission. Previous introductions of genetically-modified strategies for dengue vector control have generated controversy internationally by inadequately engaging host communities. Community Engagement (CE) was a key component of the ED Program's initial open release trials in Queensland Australia. Their approach to CE was perceived as effective by the ED team's senior leadership, members of its CE team, and by its funders, but if and why this was the case was unclear. We conducted a qualitative case study of the ED Program's approach to CE to identify and critically examine its components, and to explain whether and how these efforts contributed to the support received by stakeholders. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants with a range of experiences and perspectives related to the ED Program's CE activities. Our analytic approach combined techniques of grounded theory and qualitative description. The ED Program's approach to CE reflected four foundational features: 1) enabling conditions; 2) leadership; 3) core commitments and guiding values; and 4) formative social science research. These foundations informed five key operational practices: 1) building the CE team; 2) integrating CE into management practices; 3) discerning the community of stakeholders; 4) establishing and maintaining a presence in the community; and 5) socializing the technology and research strategy. We also demonstrate how these practices contributed to stakeholders' willingness to support the trials. Our case study has identified, and explained the functional relationships among, the critical features of the ED Program's approach to CE. It has also illuminated how these features were meaningful to stakeholders and contributed to garnering support within the host communities for the open-release trials. Our findings reveal how translating ethical intentions into effective action is more socially complex than is currently reflected in the CE literature. Because our case study delineates the critical features of the ED Program's approach to CE, it can serve as a framework for other programs to follow when designing their own strategies. And because the findings outline a theory of change for CE, it can also serve as a starting point for developing an evaluation framework for CE.
    PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 04/2015; 9(4):e0003713. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003713 · 4.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    PLoS ONE 09/2015; 10(8). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135937 · 3.23 Impact Factor